ξὺν 


i 
ott 


Ὁ ΤΉΤΕΙ 


Ν 
ie 


᾿ 


rae ny iN 
FO Mia ra 
ih ] 
i y ἮΝ 
Way! 
ae Lae \ 


ΙΝ ἢ" 
i Le | ise ιδ 
ἐκ ; ' 
i" Il) FA 
ἐπ 
ΙΝ Ὗ 
7 . ἫΙ i 
re | 
i 
᾽ 
me 
᾿ oe 
ἐλ} 


ἌΝ 


an My ΝῊ 
4 


j 
P i Vi 
ea i 

γὴν 


Mi Ι΄ ἢ ᾿ , 


Ἰ ἢ 


f ἵν, ‘ hi 
ἡ] HY ᾿ hi i i ἡ 


yyy 
hea it 


; i fe ἢν" | 


᾿ ιν 4 Ἷ ait, , 
᾿ i hi ‘ th hae at at Ἢ rt Ὶ ἢ i ite) Ὶ a ἢ} iy it! ᾿" 
ἔ ἢ υ ) 4 d fy i μῶν Vii 


cc Ἢ 

ἐν 

aa 
1S 


Δ 


COMMENTARY 


ON THE 


EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


BY MOSES STUART 


Associate Professor of Sacred Literature in the Theol. Seminary at Andover. 


SECOND EDITION, CORRECTED AND ENLARGED. 


ANDOVER: 
PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY FLAGG, GOULD, AND NEWMAN. 
NEW YORK: 


J. LEAVITT, 182, BRoaDWay. 


1833. 


Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1838, 
BY MOSES STUART, 


in the Clerk’s Office of the District Court of Massachusetts. 


PREFACE. 


A new edition of the present work has for some time been determin- 
ed on, in order to meet the calls for it which are often repeated. It 
may be proper to state in this preface, that, since the publication of the 
first edition, a work of the like kind and of about the same size has 
made its appearance in Germany; the author of which is Frederic 
Bleek, Professor Extraordinarius of Theology in the University of Ber- 
lin, at the time of its publication. Prof. Bleek is distinguished for his 
attainments in the department of sacred criticism. Of his work, how- 
ever, only the first volume has come to hand, which (like the first part 
of the present volume) is wholly occupied with an Introduction to the 
epistle to the Hebrews. The author believes that Apollos (and not 
Paul) was the author of this epistle ; and a great part of his book is oc- 
cupied in giving the history of opinions among the ancient churches 
relative to the authorship of the epistle, or in adducing arguments 
against the Pauline origin of it. 

In addition to this work of Bleek, replete with learning, and exhibit- 
ing for the most part a commendable degree of moderation and candour, 
I have received a review of the first edition of my own work, written by 
the same author since the publication of his own volume, and published 
in the Universal Literary Gazette at Halle. When Prof. Bleek pub- 
lished the volume just named, he had not seen my work on the same 
subject. His Review, therefore, which is a long one, exhibits more de- 
finitely his opinions in reference to those points in which I differ from 
him. ὃ 

In this second edition of my work I have, throughout the first part, had 
my eye upon the work and review of Prof. Bleek, and have frequently 
gone into an examination in extenso of his positions. In consequence of 
this, there has been a very considerable addition made to the present 
edition. 

I should have much preferred to render the work smaller, instead of 
enlarging it; for I well know, that a majority of readers in our country 
take less interest in discussions of such a nature as it comprises, than 
in commentary. But duty to the cause of sacred criticism, and my ob- 


IV PREFACE. 


ligation to endeavour to meet the exigencies of the times in regard to 
criticisms recently made upon the epistle to the Hebrews, do not ren- 
der it compatible for me, as I view the subject, to comply with the wish- 
es of this class of readers. I am quite sure, moreover, that if they were 
fully aware of the force which is already organized against its Pauline 
origin and its canonical authority, they would feel and judge very dif- 
ferently with respect to the importance of critical efforts to defend the 
commonly received opinion of the churches in regard to the author of 
the epistle. 

Persuaded as I am, that no efforts of learning or ingenuity can ever 
extinguish the light, which the most ancient testimony of the Christian 
Fathers and the internal structure of the writing itself afford in relation 
to the origin and author of the epistle to the Hebrews, I feel it to be a 
duty, while my convictions remain as they are, not to pass in silence 
any attempt which is worth regarding, to obscure this light. This is 
my apology for the additional matter of the present edition ; which al- 
though it does not amount in itself to a large number of pages, has, 
from the nature of the discussions, cost much severe labour ; such, in- 


deed, as only those can estimate, who have been engaged in the like 
occupation. I do not mention this in order to enhance any claims of 
mine on the reader ; but only to satisfy him, that I have not spared any 
efforts which it has been in my power to make, in order to accommo- 
date my work to the present state of sacred literature. 

Prof. Kuinoel, the well known Commentator on the historical books 
of the New Testament, has also published, a short time since, a com- 
mentary on the epistle to the Hebrews, with a somewhat extended and 
laboured introduction. He accords in the main with Bleek; but he 
has merely given a synopsis of what has been advanced by others, with- 
out adding any thing that requires notice which is strictly his own. On 
this account, I have not deemed it expedient to make his introductory 
essay a subject of special examination in the present edition of my 
work. His commentary presents some things which are worthy of at- 
tention, and by which I shall endeavour to profit in my notes upon the 
epistle; although, in general, it seems to me far inferior to his other 
critical works. 

The alterations and additions, both great and small, made in the 
present edition, are too numerous to be specified. It is my sincere wish 
to render the work more complete, and more worthy of the reader’s 
approbation. All the changes that have been made, have originated in 
this desire, and in a sense of the obligation to do the best in one’s pow- 


PREFACE, Υ 


er, which necessarily attaches itself to the publication of a work on sub- 
jects so important as those of which the present volume treats. 

I have only to add, that the type used in printing the present edition, 
enables the publishers to present it to the reader within the compass of 
fewer pages than were occupied in the first edition, and at a somewhat 
less price, notwithstanding the additions which it has received. ‘This, in- 
deed, is some sacrifice on the part of the publishers, inasmuch as their 
labour of setting up the work in type (taking the additions into the ac- 
count) is increased, while their profit is diminished. But this sacrifice 
they cheerfully make, with the hope of accommodating the public. 


M. STUART. 


Theol. Sem. Andover, 
Sept. 2, 1833. 


' ; CF 
ΩΝ. ΟΝ {9 1} Ἂν" 
Piel ue ASL ὦ. 


re 


mh 


nM 
way 
oe) 
a 


a 
pit 


᾿ ἊΨ ‘ 
ay mane πιὰ: 
ν bye, 


hi 


τὰ ΒῚ 
ὟΝ ΝΥ 


aay 
ti! Nagin 


INTRODUCTION. 


§ 1. Preliminary Remarks. 


No part of the New Testament, if perhaps we may except the Apoca- 
lypse, has occasioned so much difference of opinion, and given rise to so 
much literary discussion among critics, as the Epistle to the Hebrews. 
The principal reason of this seems to be, that this epistle does not exhibit, 
either at the beginning of it or elsewhere, any express evidence of having 
been addressed to any particular church, nor any designation of the au- 
thor’s name. If it had been expressly inscribed to a particular church, 
and if the author had originally affixed his name to it, there would of 
course have been as little occasion for dispute respecting the persons to 
whom it was addressed, or in regard to the author of it, as there has been 
in the case of the epistles to the Romans, Corinthians, or Galatians. 

At a somewhat early period of the Christian era, the eastern and western 
churches appear to have been divided in opinion respecting the author 
and canonical authority of this epistle. In modern times, and especially 
of late, every topic which its literary history could suggest, has been the 
subject of animated discussion. ἴ{ has been disputed whether it is an 
epistle, an essay, or a homily; whether it was written by Paul, Apollos, 
Barnabas, Clement of Rome, or some other person ; and whether it was 
originally written in Hebrew or in Greek. There has also been a differ- 
ence of opinion as to the place where, and the time when, it was written. 
On every one of these topics, critics have been and still are divided. 
Nor has this division been occasioned merely by a difference in theologi- 
68] opinions. 'The subjects of dispute have, in this case, been more gen- 
erally, although not always, regarded as topics of literature, rather than 
of religious sentiment or doctrine. Men of very different views and feel- 
ings, in other respects, have often been found united in the same ranks, 
when questions respecting the epistle to the Hebrews have been disputed. 
Such too is the case, even at the present time. All the learning and 
ability which have hitherto been summoned to the contest, have as yet 
failed to achieve a victory so complete, as to bring about a general ac- 
knowledgment that all ground for further dispute is fairly removed. 

The student, who is unacquainted with these facts, and who has mere- 
ly read the epistle to the Hebrews with the same views and feelings which 
he has entertained while reading the acknowledged epistles of Paul, finds 
himself thrown into a situation not a little perplexing, when he begins to 
make such critical inquiries respecting the epistle in question, as are usual- 
ly made respecting any ancient writing. He finds philologists and critics 
of great reputation in the church strangely divided and opposed to each 


8 § 1. PRELIMINARY REMARKS. 


other, in respect to every topic to be examined. What he reads in one 
author, which perhaps for a time satisfies his mind, he finds controverted, 
shaken, or overthrown by another; who again, in his turn, receives cas- 
tigation from a third; while a fourth, a fifth, and a sixth, differ each from 
all his predecessors. The curiosity of the inquirer thus becomes roused, 
and he begins to pursue some train of thought or investigation, with 
hope, or perhaps with confidence, that it will lead him to an important 
and satisfactory result. He presses forward with eagerness, peruses and 
reperuses modern critics, dives into the recesses of the ancient ones, and 
finds, perhaps, after all his toil, that he has been pursuing a phantom, 
which recedes as fast as he advances. Perplexed with doubt, and wearied 
at last with the pursuit, he becomes exposed to the danger of entirely 
abandoning his object, or of settling down in the cold and comfortless 
conclusion, that nothing satisfactory can be known in regard to it. 

Such, or not much unlike to this, will be the experience, I believe, of 
nearly every one who sets out with his mind unfettered by any notions of 
early education, and- determined seriously and thoroughly to investigate 
and weigh for himself all the evidence which can be found, in respect to 
the topics suggested by the literary history of the epistle to the Hebrews. 
He who begins such an investigation, with his mind already made up that 
Paul wrote, or did not write, this epistle; and that it was, or was not, di- 
rected to the Hebrews of Palestine; may indeed spare himself most of 
the perplexity in which an inquirer of the class just named will be in- 
volved. But then if his mind is already made up, what need is there of 
further investigation ? And why not spare himself the time and trouble ° 
which it must cost ἢ 

Minds of a different order, however, will doubtless wish to examine 
for themselves, to “ prove all things,” and then “to hold fast that which 
is good ;” if indeed they may be able to distinguish what is of this char- 
acter. It is for such, that the following investigations are intended ; and 
it is only to persons of this class, that they can be particularly useful, even 
supposing that they are conducted in such a manner as the subject de- 
mands. The writer commenced them, in the discharge of his duty as a 
lecturer upon the epistle in question. He found many unforeseen and 
unexpected obstacles in his path. He had been accustomed, with those 
around him, to regard Paul as the author of the epistle to the Hebrews ; 
and he did not well know, until he came to examine, how long and how 
extensively this had been doubted. Men of high reputation in the church, 
and who admitted the canonical authority of the epistle, he found to have 
been doubtful in regard to the question, Who was the author of it? 
Neither Luther, nor Calvin admitted it to be from the hand of Paul; and 
so early, at least, as the latter part of the second century, more or less of 
the Western churches, seem to have doubted or rejected its authority. 

With such facts before him, he became deeply interested in the sub- 
ject, and resolved, if possible, to satisfy his own mind, For this pur- 
pose, he directed his attention principally toward the original sources of 
evidence, although he has not knowingly neglected any writer of impor- 
tance among modern critics. The results of his investigation he now 
gives to the public, in hope that if they do not serve to satisfy the minds 


§2. IS IT AN EPISTLE ? 9 


of others, they will, at least, excite some to engage in the discussion of 
the topics presented, until, sooner or later, light enough is poured in to 
scatter the remaining darkness which rests upon them. 


§ 2. Is the epistle to the Hebrews appropriately called an EPISTLE, or is it 
ὦ HOMILY or ESSAY ? 


Berger, a late critic of some eminence and considerable acuteness, has 
advanced and endeayoured to support the opinion, that this epistle (so 
called) was originally a homily or address to some assembly of Christians, 
which was afterwards reduced to writing by some of the preacher’s 
friends or hearers. Others, also, have doubted whether it is properly 
named an epistle. But none have argued on this topic so much at length, 
or with so much effort, as Berger. On this account, it may be proper 
briefly to consider the principal arguments which he has advanced ; 
briefly, because the topic seems not to be of sufficient importance to justi- 
fy the occupying of much time in the discussion of it. 

(1) ‘The writer himself of the epistle to the Hebrews,’ says Berger, 
‘calls it λόγον παραχλήσεως, a hortatory address, 13: 22, which accords well 
with the contents of the piece.’ 

But Paul, one may reply, often employs the word παραχαλέω in his 
acknowledged epistles. May not then an epistle of his in which παρα- 
καλέω is used, be appropriately enough styled a λόγος παρακλήσεως 9 
May not any epistle containing precept and exhortation, be so denomin- 
ated? An instance exactly in point is the circular letter respecting the 
question about circumcision, sent by the apostolic council at Jerusalem to 
the churches in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia ; which is called a παράκλησις, 
Acts 15: 31. The words of Luke are: “ When they had read [the epis- 
tle], they rejoiced émi τῇ παρακλήσει." 

(2) ‘The writer of the epistle to the Hebrews uses λαλεῖν instead of 
γράφειν ; which is rather characteristic of a hortatory address than of an 
epistle.’ , 

But an appeal to the Greek Concordance shews, that λαλεῖν is used 
every where in the epistles contained in the New Testament; and a cor- 
responding word of the same import, is in fact used in the epistolary style 
of all nations and languages. No evidence, therefore, in favour of Ber- 
ger’s opinion, can be deduced from this usage in the epistle to the He- 
brews. 

(3) Berger supposes the basis of our present epistle to the Hebrews to 
have been the address of Paul to the church at Antioch in Pisidia, as re- 
corded in Acts 13: 14—41. Some disciple and friend of his, he conjec- 
tures, reduced this discourse to writing ; commenting or enlarging upon 
various parts of it, and finally adding of himself to the original discourse 
the four last verses of our present epistle. To these four verses he sup- 
poses that the copyist refers, when he says, “I have written to you διὰ 
βραχέων, briefly,” viz., by adding only the four last verses of the epistle, as 
properly his own. 

To these considerations we may reply, first, that the address of Paul 

2 


10 § 2. 18 IT AN EPISTLE 7 


to the church at Antioch in Pisidia exhibits two very important topics, as 
prominent parts of the discourse, which are not at all commented on (one 
of them is not even adverted to) in the epistle to the Hebrews; I mean the 
subject of John the Baptist’s testimony concerning Christ, and the resur- 
rection of Jesus, Acts 13: 24, 25, 30—37. Would it not be strange, that 
a commentator should entirely pass by the prominent topics of the very 
discourse which he designed to explain or to enforce ? 

Secondly, διὰ βραχέων ἐπέστειλα ὑμῖν does not admit of the reference 
which Berger supposes; for it is necessarily connected with the preceding 
part of the epistle to the Hebrews, and not (as he asserts) with the suc- 
ceeding part ; to which it can be attached only by doing violence to the 
ordinary laws of language. 

(4) ‘The word ἀμήν, in Heb. 13: 21, shows that the original discourse 
ended there, and that what follows is only an addition made by the tran- 
seriber,’ 

The answer is, that ἀμήν here stands after a dorology, where Paul al- 
ways inserts it; and he frequently introduces it in this way in the midst 
of his letters; e. g. Rom. 1: 25. 9: 5.11: 36. 15: 38. 16: 20. Gal. 1: 5. 
Eph, 3: 21, ete. It follows of course, that the insertion of ἀμήν cannot 
afford any valid proof that our epistle ended with it ; specially if written 
by Paul. 

(5) ‘The whole epistle is a regular series of reasoning, a connected 
chain of discourse; it is like to an essay or a homily, and not written 
after the manner of a familiar letter.’ 

But (it may well be asked in reply to this) may not and do net men 
reason, and regularly discuss subjects, in familiar letters or epistles ? Has 
not Paul discussed and reasoned in the epistles to the Romans, the Gala- 
tians, the Ephesians, and in others ? Is there any more regularity of struc- 
ture in the epistle to the Hebrews, than there is in that to the Romans ? 
Surely the regularity and orderly discussion exhibited by any composition, 
can never prove that this composition was not an epistle. At most, it can 
only serve to shew that it was not an ordinary epistle on topics of little 
moment. Nor because a great part, or even the whole, of an epistle is of 
such a tenor, that it might have been spoken as an address or a homily, 
will this prove that it was not originally, or was not designed to be, an 
epistle. For every species of composition in use among men, is employ- 
ed in epistolary writing. 

The reasons of Berger, then, for the opinion which he has advanced, 
will not bear the test of examination. I may add, that the whole question 
is but little if any thing better than logomachy. Of what consequence can 
it be, whether the so called epistle to the Hebrews, was, in its first con- 
ception, designed to be an epistle or a homily ? But whatever the original 
design was, I cannot believe, with Berger, that our epistle is a kind of 
commentary on an original discourse of Paul. That the author (the ori- 
ginal author) of the epistle wrote down his own conceptions, or at least 
dictated them to an amanuensis, appears to me so deeply enstamped on 
every part of the composition, that it seems hardly possible for a discern- 
ing and unprejudiced reader not to perceive it. But whether the author 
first spoke the words which the letter contains, to some assembly, and 


δ 3. INSCRIPTION TO THE EPISTLE. 1 


afterwards reduced them to writing, or whether he did not, can make no 
difference as to the tenor and general character of the epistle; so that 
dispute about this would be only dispute about the name to be given to 
the writing ; and how would this differ from logomachy ? 

However, if this must be disputed, we can easily satisfy ourselves re- 
specting it. ‘The address is every where like that of an epistle, viz. in 
the second person plural; with the single exception, that the writer oc- 
easionally uses ἃ χοΐίνωσις, that is, he includes himself with those whom 
he addresses, and so employs the first person plural. But this isa practice 
80. common in epistolary correspondence, that it occasions no difficulty in 
the case under consideration. 

It is true, the mode of address would be the same in regard to the par- 
ticular just noticed, if the epistle had originally been a homily. But other 
particulars render such a supposition utterly inadmissible. ᾿ς The epistle 
every where supposes the persons addressed to be absent from the writer, 
not present before him, as in the case of a homily. How could he, ina 
homily, ask them to “ pray that he might be restored to them 2” Heb. 13:19. 
How could he promise to “ make them a visit in company with Timothy, 
if he should come speedily ?” 13:23. The first of these cases, at least, 
belongs to that part of the epistle, which Berger acknowledges to be the 
original discourse of Paul. 

I add, that I am unable to see how any one can well imagine, (as 
Berger does, and as Origen long ago conjectured), that the hand of a 
commentator is discernible in this epistle. The whole tenor of it, from 
beginning to end, contradicts this. Did ever any writing come more 
warmly and fully from the heart? Here is no patch-work ; no congeries 
of heterogeneous materials ; no designed, exegetical commentary ; no trace 
of a copyist or reporter. It is one uniform, unbroken, continuous work ; 
produced by the powerful impulse of one and the same mind, which was 
fraught with a knowledge of the subject that it discussed, glowed with 
benevolent feelings toward those who were addressed, and was agitated 
with alarm at the danger to which they were exposed. Sooner should I 
think of dividing into parcels the Iliad, the Eneid, or the Paradise Lost, 
and assigning respective parts to different poets, than of introducing the 
hand of a copyist or a mere commentator into the epistle to the Hebrews. 
Be it written where, when, or by whom it may have been, one mind per- 
formed the great work, and stamped it with characteristics too plain to be 
obscured, too deep to be erased. 


§ 3. General considerations respecting the present inscription to the Episile. 


In what latitude is the word Hebrews, used in the inscription to this 
episitle, to be understood ? 

Certainly not as designating all Hebrews of every country. To the un- 
believing Jews most evidently it was not addressed. From ‘beginning to 
end, the persons addressed are regarded as having made a profession of 
the Christian faith ; for the great object of the epistle, as all agree, is to 
guard them against apostasy from this faith. 

To the believing Jews of every country, it could not have been prima- 


12 § 4. Τὸ WHAT CHURCH WAS THE EPISTLE WRITTEN ! 


rily and immediately addressed. It is altogether improbable that all such, 
in every country, were in special danger of apostasy, when this letter was 
written. We know from the epistles of Paul, that many churches plant- 
ed by him, and made up in part of Jews, were, at the period when our 
epistle must have been written, in a very flourishing condition, and emi- 
nent for Christian faith and holiness of life. Other circumstances men- 
tioned in the epistle, and pertaining to those whom he addressed, cannot 
be applied to all the believing Hebrews of that period. The writer 
speaks of the great fight of afflictions and the loss of property, to which 
those whom he addresses had been subjected for the sake of religion, 10: 
32—34; occurrences which surely had not taken place in every church 
where Jews were found. 

A still more convincing argument in favour of the sentiment just ad- 
vanced, is drawn from what the writer himself has stated at the close of 
his letter. He asks the prayers of those whom he addresses, that he may 
be speedily restored to them, 13: 19; and promises, if Timothy return in 
a short time, that he will in his company pay them a visit, 13:23. But 
can he be understood as meaning, that he would, in company with Timo- 
thy, visit all the churches where Jews were to be found throughout the 
world? And could Timothy be known to them all? Or could the cir- 
cumstances of Timothy, and of the writer himself, be so well known by 
them all, as the manner of address here necessarily supposes ? 

These considerations render it quite clear, that whosoever the Hebrews 
were that are named by the present inscription, they must have been 
those of some particular church and country. And even if we pay no 
regard to the wscription, (but suppose it, after some time had elapsed, to 
have been affixed to the epistle by another hand), the fact that Jewish con- 
verts are addressed, and such too as belong to some particular church or 
region, is, from the internal evidence of the epistle just stated, too plain 
to admit of any reasonable doubt. 


ὃ 4. To what Church was the Episile to the Hebrews written 2 


A question replete with difficulties, and which has been much agitated 
by late critics. We can easily satisfy ourselves, that the epistle was de- 
signed for Jewish converts; and exclusively (in a certain sense of this 
word) designed for them, i. e. originally adapted to them throughout, in 
its texture and mode of reasoning. But where did these converts live ? 
No salutation, such as stands at the head of nearly all the apostolic epis- 
tles, gives us information on this point. The conclusion of the letter, 
moreover, contains nothing definite enough to settle this question. We 
are left, then, to gather from ecclesiastical tradition and from internal 
evidence, such information as is necessary to determine it. But the first 
of these has been regarded by many critics, particularly by recent ones, 
as too indefinite or too imperfect to satisfy the mind of an inquirer ; and 
the second is so indeterminate, as to afford no convincing evidence, but 
rather to give occasion for constant diversity of opinion. The same pas- 
sages, for example, have often been quoted, in some instances, to support 


TO THE CHURCH AT GALATIA 7 13 


conclusions directly opposed to each other; and in other cases, definite 
conclusions have been drawn in support of particular opinions, from texts 
which appear to be capable of conveying only a general idea. 

The task of examining the principal opinions, which have been advanc- 
ed in respect to the original destination of the epistle to the Hebrews, is 
tedious and appalling ; but it has become absolutely necessary to any one, 
who makes just pretensions to acquaintance with the literary history of 
this epistle. I shall be as brief as the nature of the discussion, and justice 
to the arguments of others, will permit; and I shall examine those opin- 
ions which the authors of them have endeavoured to support by argu- 
ments, omitting a particular discussion of those which have been thrown 
out as mere conjecture. For a mere conjecture that the epistle was direct- 
ed to Jewish converts at Rome, in Spain, or at Babylon, (such conjectures 
have been made by critics of no small note), is sufficiently answered by a 
conjecture that it was directed to Jewish converts at some other place. 
Where no weight is laid in one scale, it requires none to adjust the bal- 
ance of the other. , 

In our investigations respecting the question under consideration, we 
meet with critics who have maintained, that the epistle was written to 
Jewish Christians in Galatia; in Thessalonica; in Corinth; or to dis- 
persed Hebrews in Asia Minor at large, who had fled from Palestine in 
order to avoid the persecutions to which they were there exposed. The 
majority of critics however have held, as nearly all the ancient churches 
did, that the epistle was directed to the Hebrews of Palestine. I pro- 
ceed to examine each of these opinions, in the order here suggested. 


§ 5. Was the Epistle written to the Church at Galatia ? 


The opinion that the epistle was directed to Jewish converts in Galatia, 
has been advanced and maintained, with no small degree of acuteness and 
learning, by Storr, late Professor of Theology at the University of Tiibing- 
en. I shall present a summary of the arguments which he uses to es- 
tablish it; and in order to avoid repetition, and also to render the discus- 
sion as perspicuous as may be, I shall examine the validity of each ar- 
gument, as it is adduced. 

He begins by observing, that the epistle to the Hebrews could not be 
directed to the church in Palestine, because it appears from Heb. 2: 3, 
that the persons to whom it was addressed were not such as heard Christ 
speak in person; from 12: 4 and 13: 7, that they had as yet suffered no 
bloody persecution; and from 6: 10. 13:3, 10, and 10: 34, that so far 
from having received charity from other churches, they had themselves 
contributed to the support of others. Now as neither of these things can, 
in his view, be truly said respecting the church in Palestine, he concludes 
that our epistle must have been directed to some church abroad. 

I shall not stop here to examine whether he gives a correct interpreta- 
tion of the passages on which he relies for the support of his opinion ; as 
this subject must be examined in another place. I must content myself 
at present with simply remarking, that if he has rightly construed the 


΄ 


14 ᾧ 5. WAs THE EPISTLE WRITTEN 


texts to which he refers, they only serve to shew, at most, that the church 
in Palestine was not the one to which the epistle was directed; leaving 
the question still untouched, whether it was sent, as he maintains, to the 
chureh in Galatia. As I now propose to examine only the positive argu- 
ments in favour of his opinion, I leave this consideration without further 
remark. 

Most if not all of the arguments on which Storr relies, are grounded 
on what he supposes to be probabilities. The general nature of them 
may be thus stated. ‘ Certain facts relative to the Galatians and the He- 
brews, are known from history, and from the epistles which bear their 
names. But these facts cannot well be accounted for on any other ground, 
than by the supposition that the epistles to the Hebrews and Galatians 
were cotemporaneously written and directed severally to the Jewish and 
Gentile parts of the same church. This being admitted, several things 
otherwise strange or inexplicable, may be easily accounted for ; and con- 
sequently we may or must admit such a composition and direction of 
these epistles.’ 

Let us now examine the particulars, which go to make up the general 
argument that I have just stated. 

(1) ‘As the epistle to the Hebrews was not written to the churches in 
Palestine, and as all the churches abroad consisted of a mixture of Jews 
and Gentiles, it is a singularity very striking, and at first appearance inex- 
plicable, how it should come to pass that the epistle to the Galatians is 
written exclusively to Gentile converts, and the epistle to the Hebrews 
exclusively to Jewish ones. But all appearance of difficulty vanishes, if 
we suppose that the two epistles were sent, at the same time, to the 
church in Galatia; each to the respective party for whom it was intend- 
ed. A supposition which removes such difficulties, must be regarded as 
a probable one.’ 

This supposition is not wanting in ingenuity ; and at first view, it may 
be regarded as not being destitute of probability. But then the critic 
must ask, How far can we be allowed to draw conclusions, in respect to 
subjects of this nature, from mere conjectural probabilities ? I may con- 
jecture thousands of circumstances, in themselves probable, which would 
liberate me from difficulties presented by particular passages, or by whole 
books of the Old Testament and the New; on which conjectures, how- 
ever, it would be very uncritical and unsafe for me to build conclusions, 
in respect to any matter of fact. Even if we allow the probability, then, 
of Storr’s conjecture, it cannot add much real weight to the cause which 
he endeavours to support. 

Such a probability, however, cannot well be allowed. There are cir- 
cumstances in the epistles to the Galatians and the Hebrews, relative to 
the condition of the persons respectively addressed, which serve to evince 
that the Galatian church could not, at the same time, have been address- 
ed by both of these letters. This I shall have further occasion to show, 
in the sequel. In the mean time, it may suffice to remark here, that it is 
far from being certain, as Storr assumes it to be, that the epistle to the 
Galatians is addressed exclusively to Gentile converts. When the apostle 
speaks of their being “shut up under the law, before the gospel was 


TO THE CHURCH AT GALATIA ἦ 15 


preached ;”? and of “the law having been their instructer to bring them to 
Christ,” Gal. 3: 23,24; can those whom he thus addresses have been only 
Gentiles 7 And when he speaks of their “ having been in a state of mi- 
nority before Christ came ;” of their “ having been γήπιοι, and in bondage 
to the elements of the world,” i. 6. the ritual ceremonies of the Mosaic 
law, Gal. 4: 1—3; it is far enough from being obvious, that only Gentile 
converts are addressed, Indeed, so plainly do these passages appear to 
respect Jews, that a critic of no less note than Noesselt considers it as cer- 
tain, that Jewish converts only are addressed in the epistle to the Gala- 
tians ; an opinion incapable no doubt of being defended, but still serving 
to shew that Storr has, in the case before us, taken much more for grant- 
ed than can be readily allowed. 

Moreover, it is not so singular as Storr represents it to be, that Jewish 
converts should be exclusively addressed in one case, and Gentile ones in 
another. ‘The church at Ephesus, for example, consisted, beyond all 
doubt, of a mixture of Jews and Gentiles. Yet, in the epistle which Paul 
wrote to them, he seems principally, if not solely, to address the Gentiles, 
(τὰ ἔϑνη---ἀκροβυστία, Eph. 2:11, also 3:1). But who ever thought it 
necessary, in order to account for this, to suppose that Paul also wrote 
another letter at the same time, to the Jewish part of the church at 
Ephesus ? 

Besides, what object could be answered by writing two separate letters 
at the same time? Was it not a matter of course, that the whole church 
should be made acquainted with an apostolic letter to one part of it? Is 
there not abundant evidence, that the letters of the apostles were regarded 
and treated by the early churches as encyclical, or (as we call them) cir- 
culars2 When Peter wrote his second epistle to various churches in 
Asia Minor, he adverts to Paul’s epistles as being already known to them, 
2 Pet. 3:16. And when Clement of Rome, within the first century, wrote 
his epistle to the Corinthians, he made extracts from nearly all the epis- 
tles of Paul, without even naming them; which certainly implies, that he 
regarded the Corinthian church as being already well acquainted with 
them. Such being the state of knowledge respecting the apostolic epis- 
tles in the early churches, it isa very improbable supposition, that either 
the epistle to the Galatians, or that to the Hebrews, was designed to be 
kept secret from the Jewish or Gentile Christians at Galatia, if written to 
them. Indeed, an arrangement of this nature would have worn the ap- 
pearance of a worldly policy, and of a kind of double dealing ; whieh is 
far enough from being characteristic of Paul, and which would have 
served rather to alienate than to reconcile those who were ready to re- 
nounce his authority. 

The possibility that the two letters should have been written at the 
same time, may for the sake of argument be conceded. But the necessity 
of such a supposition, on grounds alleged by Storr, is contradicted by the 
state of the epistle to the Ephesians, which is addressed to Gentiles only. 
If the probability of it has not already been shown to be little or nothing, 
in the sequel, I trust, this will be made satisfactorily apparent. 

(2) ‘ The epistle to the Hebrews,’ says Storr, ‘has no salutation, (which 
all the other epistles of Paul have); it wants the usual greeting at the 


10 § 5. WAs THE EPISTLE WRITTEN 


close ; and it no where exhibits the name of the author. These facts 
now are easily accounted for, if we suppose that this epistle was sent at 
the same time with that to the Galatians, which Paul says he wrote with 
his own hand, Gal. 6:11. It is probable that the epistle to the Hebrews 
was written by the aid of an amanuensis; and as it was sent along with 
an epistle written and subscribed by Paul in his own hand-writing, a salu- 
tation and subscription were unnecessary or superfluous.’ 

But why so? Why did not the longer epistle to the Hebrews need as 
many marks of authenticity, as the shorter one to the Galatians? Is the 
subject less important? Are the persons addressed less regarded by the 
writer? And why should the fact, (if it be one, for this too is mere con- 
jecture), that an amanuensis wrote one letter, supersede all effort to au- 
thenticate it, when Paul has been so careful to render the other letter 
authentic, which was written with his own hand? During such a con- 
test between parties as existed at Galatia, is there any probability that 
either letter would be left deficient as to the evidences of genuineness, 
when the whole weight of the apostle’s authority was needed to check 
the growing evil there? Would not the apostle at least intimate plainly 
in one letter, that he had written another? So far from salutation or 
subscription being superfluous, in such a case, the one or the other, or 
rather both of them, would seem to be peculiarly needed, in order that 
neither letter should fail of its proper destination, or have its genuineness 
disputed. 

(83) ‘In Gal. 6: 16 it is said, “As many as walk by this rule, peace be 
on them, and mercy be upon the Israel of God.” Now the phrase Israel 
of God means the Jewish converts at Galatia, in distinction from the Gen- 
tile ones ; and this conveys an intimation, that the apostle had written to 
these Jewish converts, as well as to the Gentile ones.’ 

This argument, however, is built upon an exegesis of the passage quoted 
which is inadmissible. The Israel of God is plainly a figurative name for 
true Christians. Paul had shown in the previous part of his epistle, that 
those “ who are of the faith,” whether Jews or Gentiles, are the children 
of Abraham, 3:7, 29. At the close, he pronounces a blessing on such as 
adopt the principles and obey the injunctions which he had communi- 
cated ; and he concludes it, very appositely to his purpose, by calling such 
the Israel of God, καὶ ἐπὲ toy ᾿Ισραὴλ τοῦ ϑεοῦ. The καὶ which stands 
before this clause seems clearly to be explicative, and not merely conjunc- 
tive; amounting in effect to our English namely, even, to wit, or some 
word of the same import, and placing toy Ισραήλ in apposition with the 
preceding ἐπ᾽ αὐτούς. 

But even supposing the apostle does advert here only to the Jewish con- 
verts, as such ; where is the intimation to be found that he had written 
to them? Or, if he had, that the letter was the same with our present 
epistle to the Hebrews ? 

(4) ‘The epistles to the Hebrews and to the Galatians must have been 
written about the same time; and probably both were written at Corinth, 
during Paul’s first abode there. Here Paul found Priscilla and Aquila, 
who had fled from Italy on account of Claudius’ decree which banished 
the Jews from Rome, Acts 18: 1, 2; and at the close of the epistle to the 


= 


TO THE CHURCH AT GALATIA 7 17 


Hebrews, the writer says, They of Italy (οἱ ἀπὸ τὴς ᾿Ιταλίας) salute you, 
which means, ‘ Priscilla and Aquila from Italy salute you.’ The coinci- 
dence of such circumstances renders it probable, that the epistle to the 
Hebrews was written at Corinth.—And as to the epistle to the Galatians, 
it was written between the time of Paul’s second and third visit to Gala- 
tia; and consequently must have been written during some of his jour- 
nies recorded in Acts xvi. xvir. and xvitt., which are occupied with the 
history of the apostle in the interval of time between those visits. But 
if written during this interval, when can it with so much probability be 
considered to have been written, as within the eighteen months’ abode 
of Paul at Corinth, during the same time ? Consequently it is probable, 
that both letters were written at the same place, and about the same time ; 
and it may therefore be concluded, that the supposition of their having 
been sent to Galatia at the same time, is correct.’ 

Ingenious and specious as this may appear, at first view, it is far from 
being satisfactory, when we come to examine its parts in detail. In re- 
spect to those circumstances which Storr represents as shewing that the 
epistle to the Hebrews was written at Corinth, they are far from being 
decisive. Supposing (with him) that of ἀπὸ τῆς ᾿Ιταλίας, in the greeting 
at the close, means Priscilla and Aquila; is it necessary that the saluta- 
tion from them should have been sent from Corinth? Did they not 
afterwards travel with Paul to Ephesus? Acts 18: 18,19. And were 
they not probably at Rome, during his captivity there? In Rom. 26: 3,a 
salutation is sent to them as being at Rome ; and of course they were there 
before Paul went thither as a prisoner, because his epistle to the Romans 
was written before that event, Rom. 1: 9—12. How then can we assume 
that Corinth is the only place from which Paul sent, or could send, the 
salutation of these Italians to Galatia ? 

But another consideration must be brought into our account. Storr’s 
exegesis of the expression οὗ ἀπὸ τῆς ᾿Ιταλίας is altogether improbable, 
How should two strangers, lately (we0cpetwe);come from Rome to Corinth, 
Acts 18: 2, be so well acquainted with the church at Galatia, (situated in 
the interior and very remotest part of Asia Minor, and having but little 
intercourse with the world), that it was not necessary even to name them 
to this church, but simply to advert to them by the periphrasis, οἱ ἀπὸ 
τῆς Ιταλίας3 How did the Galatians know that Priscilla and Aquila 
were at Corinth? Or how could they distinguish them from the many oth- 
er Jews that fled from Rome, after the edict of Claudius proscribing the 
Jews was published ? Besides, in all other cases where Paul sends greet- 
ings from these Italians, or to them, he calls them by name; 6. g. 1 Cor. 
16:19. 2 Tim, 4: 19. Rom. 16: 3. This view of the subject, therefore, 
renders highly improbable the very circumstance which Storr has as- 
sumed as a fact, in order to make out that the epistle to the Hebrews was 
written at Corinth. 

Next, as to the epistle to the Galatians. It was written, he says, be- 
tween Paul’s second and third journey to Galatia; therefore most pro- 
bably during his stay at Corinth, which happened in that interval of 
time. 

But, if we follow the account of Luke in the Acts, it is difficult, nay 

3 


18 § 5. WAS THE EPISTLE WRITTEN 


impossible, to defend the supposition of Storr, that the epistle to the Gala- 
tians was written after the second visit of Paul to Galatia. Act 16:6 
gives us the first intimation of a visit to Galatia by Paul ; and his second 
visit is described in Acts 18 ; 22, 23, which was after he had left Corinth, 
and travelled through Palestine and Asia Minor. I know, indeed, some 
critics have conectwred that Paul made a journey to Galatia, previously to 
the one first mentioned by Luke in Acts 16:6. But of what avail are 
conjectures in such cases, when they are supported neither by the epistle 
to the Galatians, nor by the history of Paul ? 

Nothing then but supposition is offered by Storr, to show that either 
the epistle to the Hebrews, or that to the Galatians, was written at Corinth, 
or that both were written about the same time; and of course, these cir- 
cumstances cannot be assumed as proved, or even as rendered probable, in 
order to build the conclusion on them, that the epistle to the Hebrews 
and the epistle to the Galatians were written simultaneously to the same 
church. 

(5) ¢ Timothy originated from the neighbourhood of Galatia, and was 
no doubt in company with Paul during his journey there, as mentioned 
in Acts 16:6. It is a singular circumstance, that although the apostle so 
often joins his name with his own, in the salutations contained in his 
other letters, he has not joined him in his epistle to the Galatian church ; 
specially singular, in as much as 'Timothy must have been so well known 
to the Galatians, and as he was with Paul at Corinth. But this apparent 
singularity is accounted for, when we suppose that Timothy was sent 
with both the letters in question to the Galatians; who, of course, would 
receive his salutation from his own mouth.’ 

But is it not more singular still, I ask, that Paul should say, at the 
close of the epistle to the Hebrews: Know ye that our brother Timothy is 
ἀπολελυμένον, i.e. either sent away on some errand, or set at liberty 2 Was 
it necessary to tell the Galatian church this, when Timothy was before 
their eyes in propria persona? I know indeed that Storr, in order to 
avoid this striking incongruity, has translated ywaoxste τὸν ἀδελφὸν Τι- 
μόϑεον ἀπολελυμένον thus: Receive honorably our brother Timothy who is 
sent to you; but it is a violence done to the natural import of the lan- 
guage, which no other respectable critic that I know of has sanctioned, 
and to do which, I must think, nothing but the eagerness of supporting 
a favourite theory could have led this excellent writer. 

Besides all this, how is it so strange that the name of Timothy is not 
joined with that of Paul, in the epistle to the Galatians, since neither the 
epistle to the Romans, the Corinthians, Ephesians, or to Titus, has this 
name in the salutation? How easy too the supposition, that Timothy, 
the habitual ἄγγελος of Paul, might have been absent, on business per- 
taining to the concerns of the churches, when the epistle to the Galatians 
was written! 

(6) ‘The epistle of Paul to the Galatians, both in matter and manner, 
has many striking coincidences with the epistle to the Hebrews. 

No doubt this is true. But it is equally true also of other epistles of 
Paul ; with the exception, that the subject in the epistle to the Galatians 
particularly resembles, in some important respects, that of the epistle to 


TO THE CHURCH AT GALATIA 7 19 


the Hebrews, and is prosecuted more extensively in the latter epistle, 
than in any of the other acknowledged epistles of Paul. Noesselt has 
used the same argument, in order to prove that the epistle to the Hebrews 
must have been written to the church in Thessalonica ; and Weber, to 
shew that it was written to the Corinthians. Might it not be used, with 
similar effect, to show also that it was written to the Romans? Such an 
argument may be of some weight in the question, whether Paul, or some 
other person, wrote the epistle to the Hebrews; but it cannot be of much 
avail to show that this epistle was written to the church at Galatia, rather 
than to some other church. 

(7) But the argument on which Storr seems to place most reliance of all, 
and which, if well founded, is of a historical and not of a conjectural na- 
ture, is that deduced from 2 Pet. 3: 14—16. 

As this passage is not only adduced by Storr, for the purpose of shew- 
ing that the epistle to the Hebrews was written to the Galatians; but is 
also adduced by him, and by many other critics of great reputation, for 
the purpose of proving that Paul must have been the author of the epistle 
to the Hebrews ; in order to save repetition, I shall here examine it in 
reference to both of these topics, since [ must of necessity institute an 
examination of it, with respect to the topic now under discussion, 

The passage runs thus: “ Wherefore, beloved, since ye are in expecta- 
tion of these things [viz. the changes described in the preceding context], 
make strenuous efforts that ye may be found of him [Christ] in peace, 
without spot and blameless ; and consider the delay of our Lord as to his 
coming, a matter of favour: even as our beloved brother Paul, according 
to the wisdom given to him, hath written to you; as [he has done| like- 
wise in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things ; in which are 
some things hard to be understood; which the ignorant and the unstable 
pervert, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.” 

To understand the nature of the argument drawn from this, we must 
advert to some circumstances mentioned in the epistles of Peter. His 
first epistle is directed to the churches in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, 
Asia, and Bithynia, 1 Pet. 1: 1. His second is directed to the same 
churches ; for he says, “ This second epistle, beloved, I write to you, in 
which I aim to stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance,” 2 Pet. 
3:1. To the above named churches in Asia Minor, then, the second epis- 
tle of Peter was directed. 

The nature of Storr’s argument may now be understood. It is this. 
‘In all the epistles of Paul, excepting that to the Hebrews, the churches 
are designated to which they were sent; but not so in the epistle to the 
Hebrews. Peter says, that Paul had written a letter to the churches in 
Asia Minor whom he addresses; as our beloved brother Paul hath written 
ro you. Now this cannot advert to any of his letters which have inscrip- 
tions, as they are not directed to the afore-named churches in Asia Minor. 
Consequently, Peter must refer to the epistle to the Hebrews, which is 
the only one that has no inscription. It follows, therefore, not only that 
Paul wrote this letter, but that he wrote it to some of the churches ad- 
dressed by Peter. Most probably, then, it was written to Galatia. Es- 
pecially is this credible, since the epistle to the Hebrews contains those 


20 § 5. WAS THE EPISTLE WRITTEN 


very warnings and sentiments to which Peter adverts, as being comprised 
in the letter of Paul to the churches in Asia Minor whom he addresses.’ 

One is tempted, at first view, to acquiesce in a statement seemingly so 
probable, and to conclude that the inference drawn by Storr is substan- 
tially supported. A closer examination, however, suggests formidable 
difficulties, which must not be passed over in silence. 

I omit, at present, any consideration respecting the genuineness of the 
second epistle of Peter so much called in question, and disputed by many 
churches of ancient times. It is unnecessary here to take other ground 
in regard to it than that which Storr himself has taken, i. 6. to admit its 
genuineness. What then does the passage of Peter, now in question, 
teach us ? 

(1) That Paul had written a letter to the churches whom Peter ad- 
dressed, ἔγραψεν ὑμῖν. (2) That he had urged on them the same con- 
siderations which Peter himself had urged; even as our beloved brother 
Paul hath written to you. (3) That in all his epistles (viz. all that had 
been read by them), he had urged the same or the like considerations ; as 
hkewise in all his epistles, speaking in them concerning these things. 

The question, on which the point under discussion mainly turns, is, 
What are the things to which Peter refers, as treated of in common by 
him and by Paul ? 

To find an answer to this, we may make three suppositions. First, 
they are all the subjects treated of in the preceding part of Peter’s epistle ; 
or secondly, they are those comprised in the preceding part of the third 
chapter ; or thirdly, they are those things suggested by the immediate 
context, in connexion with the passage already cited. 

Now the first of these suppositions cannot be admitted ; for Paul is so 
far from treating, in all his epistles, of every subject comprised in the 
whole of Peter’s second epistle, that he has no where treated of some of 
them. If Peter then referred to the epistles of Paul which are now ex- 
tant, it is clear he did not mean to say, that Paul had, in every epistle of 
his, discussed the same subjects that he himself had discussed throughout 
his second letter. 

But Storr urges in a special manner the second supposition, viz. that 
the subjects presented to view in the third chapter of Peter’s second epis- 
tle, are particularly treated of in the epistle to the Hebrews; and conse- 
quently that Peter must have referred to these subjects, and to that epis- 
tle. The sum of the third chapter of Peter is, ‘That the heavens and the 
earth are perishable ; that they will be destroyed by fire; that the delay 
to destroy the ungodly must not be imputed to slackness on the part of 
the Lord, who puts off this catastrophe on account of his long-suffering 
towards men ; and that the time when they shall be dissolved by fire, 
will come speedily and unexpectedly, and then the heavens and the earth 
will be destroyed, and new heavens and a new earth created.’ Such is 
the context. Then follows the exhortation; “ Beloved, keep yourselves 
unspotted and blameless ; and regard the delay of your Lord’s coming as 
a favour ; even as our beloved brother Paul has written to you, etc.” Now 
where has Paul written any thing respecting the dissolution of the mate- 
rial elements of the universe by fire, and the creating of new heavens and 


ΤῸ THE CHURCH AT GALATIA ἢ 21 


a new earth instead of them? I do not find this subject treated of in the 
epistle to the Hebrews ; nor is it touched upon in all the epistles of Paul ; 
it is only adverted to in some of them. It is then, 

Thirdly, the exhortation in the immediate context, to keep themselves un- 
spotted and blameless, in view of their Lord’s coming, which Peter means to 
say had been urged by Paul on the persons whom he addressed, as well 
as by himself. This is the plain grammatical construction ; and it is the 
only one which will bear examination, by comparing it with the contents 
of Paul’s epistles. 

But exhortation of such a nature is far from being contained only in 
the epistle to the Hebrews. The epistles to the Corinthians, Philippians, 
the first to the Thessalonians, the first to Timothy, and that to Titus, con- 
tain direct exhortations of this sort; and the other epistles of Paul exhibit 
repeated intimations of the same nature. If the argument is good, then, 
to prove that the epistle to the Hebrews was written to the Galatians, be- 
cause it contains such sentiments and exhortations as those in question, 
then the same argument might prove, that any of the other epistles of 
Paul were written to the same church, because they contain the like sen- 
timents. 

But there is one of the churches in Asia Minor to which Peter wrote, 
namely that of Galatia, to which a letter of Paul now extant is addressed. 
May not this be the very epistle to which Peter adverts, and not the epis- 
tle to the Hebrews? In chapter 6: 7—9, is a passage of warning and 
exhortation, grounded on the doctrine of future retribution. This possi- 
bly may be the very passage to which Peter adverts; or if any should 
think it too general to satisfy the reference which he makes, (as one would 
naturally be rather prone to think), then the exhortation may have been 
in a letter now lost. That some of Paul’s letters are lost is pretty cer- 
tain, from 1 Cor. 5: 9—11; see also, Phil. 3:1. Evidently one of John’s 
epistles is lost; “I wrote to the church,” says he in his second epistle, 
verse 9, “but Diotrephes, who loves preéminence, did not receive us.” 
We have no remains of the epistle to which he here adverts. The letter 
of Paul, which Peter mentions, may have shared the same fate. At most, 
the epistle to the Hebrews, even supposing it to be proved that Paul 
wrote it, has no special claim to be considered as the one adverted to by 
Peter. 

If then it cannot be shewn, (as [ am fully persuaded it cannot), that 
Peter, in the passage under consideration, adverts to the epistle to the 
Hebrews, of course it cannot be shewn from Peter’s testimony, that Paul 
wrote this epistle. This argument has, indeed, been often and strongly 
urged by modern and late critics, in order to establish this point ; but it 
will not abide the test of examination. The ancient church, it is well 
known, never brought it forward to support the opinion that Paul was the 
author of the epistle to the Hebrews. Storr himself, who urges it very 
strongly, concedes that it was never employed by the Christian fathers. 
It does not follow, indeed, that it has no validity, because it was not em- 
ployed by them. ‘But it would seem, at least, that the proof to be derived 
from it is not so obvious, nor so conclusive, as some modern critics have 
deemed it. 


22 § 6. WAS THE EPISTLE DIRECTED 


(8) Storr adduces ‘ the special circumstances of the churches addressed 
in the epistles to the Galatians and to the Hebrews, as a ground for the 
opinion, that both epistles were directed to the church at Galatia. The 
Galatians, says he, ‘had for a long time been Christians; so had the 
Hebrews. The Galatians were persecuted and misled by false teachers, 
and were in danger of defection from Christianity ; so were the Hebrews.’ 

Now so far from finding evidence of sameness, in the representations 
of the two epistles respecting these circumstances, [ find proof of dissimi- 
larity so great as to exclude all hope of supporting the opinion of Storr, 
and to shew that the admission of it would do great violence to the laws 
of probability. To the Galatians Paul says, “ I marvel that ye are so soon 
removed from him who called you to the grace of Christ, unto another 
gospel,” Gal. 1: 6. Τὸ the Hebrews he says, “ When for the time [i. 6. 
plainly the long time since they professed Christianity] ye ought to be 
teachers, ye have need again to be taught the first elements of religion,” 
Heb. 5:12. Again, “Call to mind the former days in which, when ye 
were enlightened, ye endured a great fight of afflictions,” 10: 32. And 
again, the writer calls on them to “ remember the example of their former 
teachers, who were deceased,” 13: 7. 

Then as to persecution, the Hebrews had suffered the loss of their 
property by it, 10:34; but there is no intimation of this in respect to the 
Galatians. Indeed, there is no proof that out of Palestine persecution 
was such, in the apostolic age, {one or two instances only excepted), as to 
deprive men of either property or life. The Roman magistracy did not 
permit this, either out of Palestine or in it, so long as they were in au- 
thority. This is evident from several passages of history in the Acts; e. 
g. Acts 18: 12, 17. 19: 835—40. Acts xvi. xxvi. Then there isa great dif- 
ference between the kind of persecution animadverted upon in the epistle 
to the Galatians, and in that to the Hebrews. In the former, Christians 
are addressed as in danger, from their pressure, of incorporating Judaism 
with Christianity, and making the continued profession of it essential to 
salvation ; in the latter, they are every where addressed as in danger of a 
final and total renunciation of the Christian religion. In the one, they 
are dehorted from superadding the Jewish ceremonies to Christianity ; in 
the other, from utterly abandoning the Christian religion. 

But further; Paul says, in Gal. 6: 11, “ Ye see how waree a letter I 
have written to you with my own hand.” Yet this epistle consists of on- 
ly str chapters of a moderate length. How then could Paul say to a part 
of the same church, in a letter accompanying this, “ I beseech you, breth- 
ren, to bear with a word of exhortation from me, for I have written unto 
you διὰ βραχέων, IN A FEW worDs,” or briefly, Heb. 13:22. Yet this 
brief epistle is more than twice as long as the large letter which accom- 
panied it. Could Paul so forget himself, on such an occasion as this ? 

Again, Paul often adverts, in his epistle to the Galatians, to the fact that 
he was the first who taught them the doctrines of Christianity. Yet in 
the epistle to the Hebrews there is not a word of this; but, plainly, the 
whole manner of the letter, and specially the manner in which he speaks 
of the teachers of those whom he addresses, implies that he had not him- 
self planted the church to which his letter was directed. 


TO THE CHURCH AT THESSALONICA ἢ aa 


But what determines the question beyond all hope of supporting the 
views of Storr, is, that in the epistle to the Galatians, their teachers are 
animadyerted upon with great severity, on account of their improper con- 
duct and erroneous doctrines. 'They are represented as perverting the 
gospel of Christ ; as having an erroneous zeal for selfish purposes, 4: 17. 
3:13; and the apostle even proceeds so far as to express a wish, that 
they might be cut off from the church, 5:12. But how totally dif- 
ferent is the character given of teachers, in the epistle to the Hebrews ! 
“ Obey your teachers, and be subject to them; for they watch over your 
souls as they that must give an account ;” i. e. they are altogether worthy 
of your confidence and obedience, 13: 17. And at the close of the letter, 
he sends his affectionate salutations to them, 13: 24. 

These considerations seem to remove all probability, and even possibili- 
ty that the epistle to the Hebrews was, as Storr maintains, written at the 
same time and place as the epistle to the Galatians, and that it was also 
directed to the same church. 

The excellent character and distinguished acuteness of Storr, entitle 
almost any opinion which he has seriously defended to examination ; but 
I cannot resist the impression, that he has utterly failed in defending the 
sentiment which has now been examined. 

I have, throughout this investigation, proceeded on the supposition that 
Paul wrote the epistle to the Hebrews; which Storr fully believed. 
Whether there is sufficient reason to believe that Paul was the author of 
the epistle, will be a subject of discussion in a subsequent part of this in- 
troduction. In the mean time I shall concede this point, (while exam- 
ining the question relative to its destination), to all the writers who have 
assumed it in supporting their respective opinions. Such is the case with 
most of those, whose various opinions relative to the destination of our 
epistle still remain to be examined, or to which any reference will be made. 


§ 6. Was the epistle directed to the church at Thessalonica 2 


The character which has just been given of Storr will also apply, in 
respect to some of its prominent traits, to Noesselt, late professor of The- 
ology at Halle, who has maintained, in an essay devoted to this purpose, 
that the epistle to the Hebrews was written to the churches in Macedonia, 
or rather to the church at Thessalonica ; Opusc. Fascic. I. No. 10. Sem- 
ler had done this before him; but on somewhat different grounds, and 
with less plausible reasons. On this account, I shall now, without par- 
ticularly adverting to the efforts of Semler, proceed to examine the more 
ably supported opinion of Noesselt. 

The general principle to which Noesselt makes an appeal in his argu- 
ment, in itself considered, is correct. He endeavours to show, that ‘there 
are circumstances mentioned in the epistle to the Hebrews, in Paul’s epis- 
tles to the Thessalonian church, and in the life of this apostle, which af- 
ford a very striking agreement; so striking as to render it altogether 
probable, that Paul must have directed to this church the epistle which is 
now inscribed, To the Hebrews ; and that he must have written it during 


24 § 6. WAS THE EPISTLE DIRECTED 


his abode of eighteen months at Corinth, as recorded in Acts xvi’ Let 
us examine these circumstances. 

(1) ‘When Paul visited Corinth for the first time, he found Priscilla 
and Aquila there, who had recently fled from Italy, on account of the de- 
cree of Claudius which banished the Jews from Rome, Acts 18:1, 2. At 
the close of the epistle to the Hebrews, he says, “They of Italy salute 
you ;” meaning Priscilla and Aquila. Here then is a circumstance in 
the epistle to the Hebrews, which accords with the circumstances of Paul, 
during his first visit to Corinth.’ 

But, as [ have before remarked (p. 17), Paul was in company with 
these Italians at other places besides Corinth. From some of these other 
places, then, he might have written this salutation. Besides, is there any 
probability, (as I have before asked), that two strangers, who had recently 
(προσφάτως) come from a city so distant as Rome, should be so well 
known to the Thessalonians in the extreme north-eastern part of Greece, 
that they needed not even to be named, but simply called οὗ ἀπὸ τῆς 
᾿Ιταλίας, ina greeting or salutation? And _ particularly so, as neither of 
them were officers in the church, or public teachers. In all other cases, 
as has been already shewn, Paul expressly names these persons when he 
adverts to them. Why should he depart here from his usual custom ? 

(2) ‘ Paul says, at the close of the epistle to the Hebrews, that Timothy 
was ἀπολελυμένον, sent away; and Paul had sent Timothy from Berea to 
Thessalonica, and. Paul himself was at Athens, a little before he came to 
Corinth, comp. Acts 17: 13—16. Here then is a concurrence of circum- 
stances, which favours the opinion that the epistle to the Hebrews was 
written by Paul at Corinth, and directed to the Thessalonians.’ 

To understand the nature of this argument, and the reply which I 
have to make, it is necessary to advert, for a moment, to the history of 
Paul’s journies at the time now under consideration. Paul, in company 
with Silas and Timothy, first preached the gospel at Thessalonica, where 
a church was formed; but being vehemently opposed by some of the 
Jews, they went to Berea a neighbouring city, Acts 17:10. 'Thither the 
persecuting Jews of Thessalonica followed them; in consequence of 
which, Paul, leaving Silas and Timothy there, withdrew to-Athens. Here 
he resided a short time, and then went on his first visit to Corinth, Acts 
17: 1—15. 18:1. At this last place he staid eighteen months, Acts 18: 
11. Now Noesselt supposes, that before Paul left Athens, he sent 'Timo- 
thy (who was still at Berea, Acts 17: 10, 14) back to Thessalonica, in order 
to make inquiries respecting the state of the church there; and that this 
is the meaning of that passage at the close of the epistle to the Hebrews, 
Ye know, (as he would translate it), that our brother Timothy is sent away. 

But as there is nothing of all this in the history which Luke has given 
of Paul and Timothy, Acts xvit., and as the whole must therefore be 
founded on conjecture ; it might be sufficient, on the other hand, to con- 
jecture that Paul did not send Timothy from Berea to Thessalonica, as 
Noesselt supposes. 

However, respect for so excellent a critic as Noesselt, would rather 
demand some argument to shew that this conjecture cannot be well foun- 
ded. 1 would observe, then, that in order to render his position proba- 


ΤῸ THE CHURCH AT THESSALONICA ἢ 25 


ble, he assumes as a fact, that the epistle to the Hebrews was written be- 
fore the epistles to the Thessalonians; a supposition not capable of being 
rendered probable, much less of being proved. 

It will be admitted, that there is not a word in our present first epistle 
to the Thessalonians, respecting any previous letter addressed to them; a 
circumstance not to be imagined, provided the apostle had written such a 
laboured epistle to them as that to the Hebrews is, and on such an im- 
portant question. Besides, it appears altogether probable from Acts 18: 
1—6, that Silas and 'Timothy arrived at Corinth soon after Paul had gone 
there ; so that the absence of Timothy, supposed by Noesselt to have 
taken place at the time when the epistle to the Hebrews was written, can- 
not be rendered at all probable, from this part of Paul’s history; for it 
cannot be thought probable, that such an epistle as that to the Hebrews 
would be written by Paul immediately after his arrival at Corinth, amidst 
all the agitation and dispute and hazard occasioned by his first preaching 
there. But even conceding that this might have been done ; is it proba- 
ble that Paul, who (according to Noesselt) had just before, while at Athens, 
sent Timothy to Thessalonica, and who knew that he was now there, 
should gravely write to the Thessalonians, Ye know that our brother Timo- 
thy is sent away ; when this same Timothy, in propria persona, was present 
with the very church to whom this was written ὃ 

(3) ‘In Heb. 10: 34 Paul says, Ye had compassion on my bonds ; or, ac- 
cording to another reading of equal authority, Ye had compassion on those 
who were bound, i. e. the prisoners. This refers to Paul’s imprisonment, 
as related in Acts 16: 23—40; and to the sympathy which the 'Thessalo- 
nians evinced for him in these circumstances.’ 

But this imprisonment was at Philippi, before Paul had visited Thessa- 
lonica, and before the Thessalonians could know that he was in their re- 
gion, except by report. This imprisonment lasted but a few hours; it 
ended in a most triumphant deliverance by the interposition of divine 
power, and in the shame and mortification of the magistracy who had or- 
dered it. The whole occurrence, instead of demanding compassionate 
sympathy, was a matter of triumph and congratulation. Or if otherwise, 
it was not an affliction in respect to which the Thessalonians could com- 
passionate Paul, as they could not know of its having happened, until it 
was past. And if they had known it, as the Christian religion had never 
yet been preached to them, what sympathy could they have had with 
Paul, because he suffered as a Christian ? 

(4) ‘The Hebrews are praised for their liberality ; and so are the Thes- 
salonians,’ 

To which I reply, So are other churches. Does it follow, because 
they exhibited this trait of character which was common among Christians 
in the apostolic age, that the Thessalonian church must have been the 
same which is thus recommended in the epistle to the Hebrews ? 

(5) ‘The persons to whom the epistle to the Hebrews was ‘addressed, 
had suffered persecution, Heb. 10: 32. 12:45 which was also the case 
with the Thessalonians, 1 Thess. 2: 14—16. 2 Thess. 1. 11.’ 

So had many other churches; 6. g. the church at Philippi, Phil. 1: 
27—30. But neither at Thessalonica, nor scarcely any where else, except 

4 


΄ 


26 § 6. WAS THE EPISTLE DIRECTED 


in Palestine, do we know of a persecution at this period, which involved 
the loss of property and the hazard of liberty and life. The epistle to the 
Hebrews speaks of their being despoiled of their property, 10: 34; a cir- 
cumstance not mentioned in the account of the persecution at 'Thessalo- 
nica, and one which makes directly against the supposition of Noesselt. 

(6) ‘The Thessalonians were in danger of defection from the faith, so 
that Paul was obliged to send Timothy to confirm them, 1 Thess. 3: 2, 3; 
and the same danger is every where adverted to, in the epistle to the 
Hebrews.’ 

This argument is built on an erroneous exegesis. That Timothy made 
a visit to confirm the ‘Thessalonians, does not surely imply that they were 
in special danger of apostasy. When Paul is said to have gone through 
Asia Minor confirming the churches, Acts 15 : 36—41. 16: 4—6. 18: 23, 
are we to draw the inference that all the churches there were in the same 
danger of apostasy, as the persons to whom the epistle to the Hebrews is 
addressed ? If not, this argument of Noesselt has no force to establish the 
opinion which He advocates. 

(7) ‘There is a great similarity between the epistle to the Hebrews, 
and the epistle to the Thessalonians.’ 

So there is, also, between the epistle to the Hebrews and all the epis- 
tles of Paul. This argument, then, proves too much. It may serve to 
shew that Paul probably wrote the epistle to the Hebrews; but it can 
have no important influence on the question, Jo whom did he write this 
epistle ? 

Most of the similarities, moreover, which are produced by Noesselt, are 
similarities of a general nature in respect to sentiments of piety and mo- 
rality. Must there not of course be a similarity in these respects in all 
the epistles of Paul, provided he always taught the same doctrines of 
Christianity ὃ 

But the dissimilarities between the epistles to the Thessalonians and 
the Hebrews, Noesselt has not proceeded to develope. Yet there are 
some; and some so striking, as to render the supposition which he de- 
fends altogether improbable. ‘The Hebrews addressed in our epistle had 
been for a long time Christians; but if Noesselt’s supposition be true, 
they had been so only a few months, at most, when Paul wrote his first 
epistle to them ; for Paul had only made a rapid journey from Thessalon- 
ica, to Athens, and thence to Corinth; and soon after his arrival there, 
and (as Noesselt thinks) before Timothy had come to him, he wrote the 
epistle in question. 

I may add, the author of the epistle to the Hebrews no where adverts 
to his having first planted Christianity among them. But Paul, in his 
epistle to the Thessalonians, very frequently adverts to this circumstance. 

Further, the epistle to the Hebrews is directed to a church almost 
wholly (if not altogether) Jewish ; while it is plain from Acts 17: 4, 5, 
that only a few Jews had early joined the Thessalonian church ; and plain- 
er still, that this church was principally made up of Gentiles, from Paul’s 
first epistle to them, 1: 9, where he says, ‘ Ye have turned from your idols 
to serve the living God.’ Now circumstances so widely diverse and op- 
posite, cannot be predicated of the same church, while they have respect 


ἐῶ 


wy 
4 


TO HEBREWS IN ASIA MINOR 7 


only to an interval of time, which, at the most, cannot exceed the eighteen 
months that Paul abode at Corinth. 

Finally, Paul’s two epistles to the Thessalonians, throughout, are filled 
with commendations of the Thessalonian church, for their firmness and 
steadfastness in the faith of the gospel. Not a word of their Jewish pre- 
judices. Not a reference to the imminent danger of apostasy, which is 
every where developed in the epistle to the Hebrews. Noesselt accounts 
for this, by the supposition that Paul’s first epistle to them, (viz. that to 
the Hebrews, as he supposes), had produced a thorough reformation 
among them. But when Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians had effect- 
eda Toraoans in respect to various particulars of far less importance 
than those treated of in the epistle to the Hebrews, how does the apostle 
fill his second letter with commendations, which have a direct refer- 
ence to his former admonitions ? Could it be otherwise here, if the epistle 
to the Hebrews had been written before our present epistles to the 'Thes- 
salonians, and produced such an effect as Noesselt supposes ? 

On the whole, then, the supposition of Noesselt must be abandoned ; 
not only because it is not well supported, but because it involves difficul- 
ties and improbabilities so great as to render it altogether incredible. 


§ 7. Was it directed to Hebrews, who were sojourners in Asia Minor ? 


Bolten, (who has distinguished himself in a particular manner, by a 
translation of the New Testament with constant reference to the Syriac 
or Syro-chaldaic language, in which he supposes many of the original 
documents must have been composed), has advanced the opinion, that 
the Hebrews addressed in our epistle, were those who had fled from Pal- 
estine about A. D. 60, on account of the persecutions there, and were 
scattered abroad in Asia Minor. To this he thinks the οὗ καταφυγόντες in 
6: 18 refers ; as also the passage in 13: 14, which speaks of their having 
no abiding city. He finds parallels of such a meaning in 3 John vs. 5 
and 7, where strangers are mentioned, and those who have gone abroad 
(ἐεῆλϑον) for has [Christ’s] name’s sake ; in 1 Pet. 1: 1, where sojourners of 
the dispersion are mentioned; and in James 1: 1, where the οὗ ἐν τῇ 
διασπορᾷ are addressed. 

I am unable, however, to find any history of a persecution in Palestine, 
at the period which he mentions, or any account of a dispersion of Jew- 
ish Christians abroad at that period. As to the texts which he cites, in 
favour of his supposition, they will not bear the construction which he 
has put upon them. We who have fled, Hebrews, 6: 18, is inseparably 
connected with the clause which follows, viz. to lay hold on the hope set 
before us, i.e, in the gospel. Besides, the writer does not say you who» 
have fled, but we, i. 6. Christians, So also in 13: 14, it is we (viz. Chris- 
tians) who have no abiding city, i. e. no permanent place of happiness in 
the present world. The passage in 3 John vs. 5, 7, probably refers to 
Gentile Christians, who became exiles; and those in James and Peter, 
have respect merely to Jews who lived in foreign countries, in distinc- 
tion from those who lived in Palestine. 


28 § & WAs THE EPISTLE ADDRESSED 


Besides, how could the apostle address wandering fugitives, scattered 
over Asia Minor and destitute of a home, as in a condition to bestow 
charity? 13: 1,2,16. How could he speak of them as having stated 
teachers? 13:17, 24. How could he expect his letter to reach them ; 
or promise them a visit with Timothy, 13: 23, in case he should speedily 
return ? 

Respectable as the critic is who has advanced this opinion, it seems to 
be quite destitute of probability, and entitled to but little consideration. 


§ 8. Was the epistle addressed. to the church at Corinth ? 


Michael Weber, who has distinguished himself in some respects as @ 
critical writer on the canon of the New Testament, has advanced and en- 
deavoured to support the opinion, that the epistle to the Hebrews was 
written to the church at Corinth. He labours, in the first place, to shew 
that Paul wrote no less than five letters to the Corinthians. The first 
was one which has been lost, and which Paul mentions in our present 1 
Cor. 5: 9—13; the second and third were our first to the Corinthians, 
and so much of the second as includes chapters 1—1x, with the two last 
verses of the epistle ; the fourth, our present epistle to the Hebrews ; and 
the fifth, the remainder of the second epistle to the Corinthians: all which, 
he thinks, were written in the order now suggested. 

Proceeding on the ground of such an arrangement of Paul’s letters, he 
endeavours to support his opinion, that the epistle to the Hebrews was 
written to the Corinthians, by arguments which 1 shall now examine. 

(1) ‘The Hebrews became Christians at an early period, and so did 
the Corinthians ; the Hebrews were Judaizing Christians, and so were the 
Corinthians. An agreement in these respects renders it probable, that the 
epistle to the Hebrews was sent to the church at Corinth.’ 

But Paul did not visit Corinth until A. D. 51 or 52, after he had re- 
peatedly traversed the various countries of Asia Minor, and founded sev- 
eral churches in Macedonia. It cannot therefore be called an early peri- 
od, at which the Corinthians were converted. Paul established few if 
any new churches, after the establishment of this at Corinth; at least, 
history does not give us any account of them. 

In respect to the Corinthians being Judaizing Christians, the proof is 
altogether wanting. 'The apostle has taken no notice of any contest or 
question of this nature among them. He has indeed, in 2 Cor. ὃ : 6—18, 
drawn a parallel between the Mosaic and Christian dispensations ; but it 
is of a general nature, and touches none of the points usually contested 
by Judaizing Christians. In 2 Cor. 12: 13—23, to which Weber appeals 

“for proof of his assertion, it is plain that some false teacher, or teachers, 
is adverted to by Paul; whose conduct he describes, in terms which con- 
vey very strong disapprobation. But where is the evidence of a Judaizing 
spirit here? And then, the manner in which the apostle here speaks, in- 
stead of aiding to establish the position of Weber, seems absolutely to 
overthrow it; for in the epistle to the Hebrews the teachers (as we have 
already had occasion to remark), are commended as being altogether wor- 


TO THE CHURCH AT CORINTH ? 29 


thy of confidence and obedience, Heb. 13: 17,24. We have already 
seen, moreover, that the church at Corinth consisted at first of but few 
Jews ; as is plain from the history of Paul’s first labours there, Acts xvirr. 

(2) ‘ There is a most striking resemblance between the epistle to the 
Hebrews and the epistle to the Corinthians.’ 

This Weber labours to establish, by a comparison of the method in 
which each quotes the Old Testament ; of the ἅπαξ λεγόμενα ; and of the 
similitudes employed. 

That there is a similarity, I should readily concede. But resemblance, 
and even striking resemblance, is not confined merely to the epistles ad- 
dressed to the Corinthians and to the Hebrews. Storr finds it between 
the epistles to the Galatians and to the Hebrews; Noesselt, between the 
epistles to the Thessalonians and to the Hebrews; and it may be easily 
shown, (as it will be hereafter), that the epistle to the Hebrews has a 
striking resemblance to all the epistles of Paul, in a variety of respects. 
Why should we then, or how can we, limit this to the epistles addressed 
to the Corinthians ? 

But in various respects, in which Weber has undertaken to make out a 
likeness between the epistle to the Hebrews and the epistles to the Corin- 
thians, it seems to me that he has entirely failed. In the epistle to the 
Hebrews, repeated reference is made to personal sufferings and loss of 
property through persecution, Heb. 10: 33, 34. 12:4; but in the epistle 
to the Corinthians, we discover no traces of such persecution; nor does 
the history of the church at Corinth give us any knewledge that persecu- 
tion early prevailed there. At all events, when our present first epistle 
to the Corinthians was written, it is clear that no such event had taken 
place at Corinth ; for Paul says, 1 Cor. 10: 13, no trial hath befallen you 
but such as is common to men. Now as the epistle to the Hebrews speaks 
of the great fight of afflictions (10 : 33, 34), which they endured when they 
were first enlightened, here is an absolute contradiction of Weber’s sup- 
position, instead of a confirmation of it. 

(3) ‘The warnings, exhortations, and commendations for charity be- 
stowed, are alike in the epistles to the Corinthians and to the Hebrews,’ 

But the same resemblances, which Weber finds between these epistles, 
Noesselt finds between the epistles to the Thessalonians and to the He- 
brews. Such resemblances may be found, also, in other epistles. They 
are, however, of a nature too general to afford any evidence which is of 
weight, in such a question as the one before us. Does not every Chris- 
tian church need warning, reproof, consolation 3 And is not every one that 
is charitable, entitled to commendation? [τ is not, therefore, from a com- 
parison of general expressions of this nature, that the sameness of churches 
addressed can be proved. There must be something pattie local, 
and swi generis, to make such proof valid. 

(4) The greeting at the close of the epistle to the Hebrewaie ἀσπάζονται 
ὑμᾶς οἱ ἀπὸ τῆς ᾿Ιταλίας, Weber understands, (like the critics whom I have 
already examined), as referring to Priscilla and Aquila; and compares 
it with the greeting from the same persons, in 1 Cor. 16: 19. 

But in the latter place they are expressly named ; so that there is astrik- 
ing dissimilitude instead of resemblance, in the manner of the salutation. 


90 § 8. WAS THE EPISTLE ADDRESSED 


(5) He further compares several ideas, in the epistle to the Corinthians 
and the epistle to the Hebrews; such as warnings taken from the exam- 
ple of ancient Israel, 1 Cor. 10: 1—12 and Heb, 3: 16—18 ; the doctrine 
that God chastises his children for their good, 1 Cor. 11: 32 and Heb. 
12: 5—11; and some other things, about which similar views in both 
epistles are expressed. 

The words, however, which are employed in these two cases, are for 
the most part quite diverse. And even if they were not, could Paul 
write on such subjects to no more than one church? And must that 
church be only at Corinth ? 

(6) ‘But the epistle to the Hebrews is called λόγον παρακλήσεως ; and 
also in 2Cor. 16: 1, Paul says παρακαλοῦμεν." 

True ; but the same Paul repeatedly uses παρακαλέω in his epistles to 
the Romans, Ephesians, Philippians, Thessalonians, and elsewhere. Was 
the epistle to the Hebrews written to each of these churches, because 
παρακαλέω is a word common to it and to the epistles directed to them? 

(7) ‘In 1 Cor. 4: 18,19. 16: 2—7, the apostle has expressed his de- 
sire or determination to pay the Corinthians a visit; and at the close of 
the epistle to the Hebrews, the same determiation is expressed, Heb. 
13 : 23, 

But were there no other churches which the apostle desired or deter- 
mined to visit, besides that at Corinth? And could he express the 
desire or determination to visitno other? Even if all this should be ad- 
mitted, the determination to pay a Visit, as expressed in our first epistle to 
the Corinthians, was abandoned when he wrote the second, 1: 15, seq. ; 
which according to Weber’s own arrangement, was written before our 
epistle to the Hebrews. 

(8) ‘From 1 Cor. 16: 10 it appears that Timothy, when this letter was 
written, was absent from Paul; and in the epistle to the Hebrews, 13: 23, 
he is said to be sent away (ἀπολελυμένον). Here again is a similarity of 
circumstances.’ 

Granted ; but was not Timothy constantly employed in this manner, on 
errands of Paul to the churches? Was he absent once only? And could 
Paul tell no other church of his absence, but that of Corinth? Besides, 
the second epistle to the Corinthians, (written according to Weber him- 
self before the epistle to the Hebrews), makes it clear that Timothy had 
already returned ; for he is joined with Paul, in the salutation at the be- 
ginning of the epistle, 2 Cor, 1: 1. 

(9) ‘Since the writer of the epistle to the Hebrews says, 13: 22, I have 
written to you διὰ βραχέων, briefly, this refers to our second epistle to the 
Corinthians, [which according to Weber consisted of the first nine chap- 
ters]; and the meaning of this phrase is, ‘My last epistle to you, (viz. the 
second epistle to the Corinthians), was short;’ implying, at the same time, 
that the present one is longer or more copious.’ 

But such an explanation the text will not bear. “1 beseech you, breth- 
ren,” says the writer, “bear with my address to you, because (or since) I 
have written briefly ;” he evidently means, briefly in comparison with the 
importance of the subject and the occasion; briefly in comparison with 
the copiousness which his interested feelings for them and the cause of 


TO THE CHURCH AT CORINTH 7 - di 
truth would have prompted. “I have written briefly”, is an apology for 
the letter to the Hebrews which the writer was then concluding ; and 
not for a former one to the church at Corinth. The incongruity of a 
supposition such as Weber makes, is manifest from the meaning of the 
very language which he quotes to support it. For how could the 
apostle say that he had written briefly, in the second epistle to the 
Corinthians, and imply that he had written copiously in the epistle to the 
Hebrews; when, even abridged as Weber makes the former, it would be 
almost as long as the latter ? 

We have seen the inconclusive nature of Weber’s arguments, and 
their insufficiency to establish his opinion. It may now he observed, in 
addition, that the subjects treated of in the epistle to the Corinthians, and 
in that to the Hebrews, are widely different, in general, and quite dissimi- 
lar. Not a word in the epistle to the Hebrews of internal disorder, tu- 
mult, and parties in the church; no precepts about separation of husband 
and wife; none concerning meats offered to idols ; none about the abuse 
of spiritual gifts; no discussion about the resurrection of the body ; 
nothing about the denial of Paul’s authority ; which, with various matters 
relating to decorum, constitute the principal subjects discussed in our 
present epistles to the Corinthians. On the other hand, in the epistles 
to the Corinthians there is nothing about apostasy; nothing relative to 
persecution ; nothing in commendation of their teachers ; no apparent ap- 
prehension expressed respecting a Judaizing spirit in the church. If the 
epistles to the Corinthians have resemblances in expression and doctrine 
to the epistle to the Hebrews, (as all Paul’s epistles certainly have a 
resemblance to it), are they not still so diverse as to the matters treated 
of, and as to the circumstances of the parties addressed, as to render 
hopeless all attempts to shew that our present epistles to the Hebrews and 
to the Corinthians were addressed to one and the same church ? 


§9. Was the epistle sent to Spain, to Rome, to Alexandria, or to Antioch ? 


Ludwig has conjectured, that the epistle to the Hebrews was written to 
a church in Spain; and Wetstein, that it was written to the church at 
Rome. But these conjectures are altogether unsupported by the authors 
of them, and therefore need not delay our present investigation. We 
have the same liberty to conjecture, that it was written to some other 
place ; and the argmuent (if it be one) would be equally good. 

In regard to the supposition of J. E. C. Schmidt, (Einleit ins N. Test. 
Th. I. pp. 284. 293), that the epistle was directed to the church at Alexan- 
dria, much need not be said. This writer alleges, 

(1)* That an Alexandrine spirit pervades the epistle.’ 

But if this be true, it serves only to render it probable that the writer 
was of Alexandria, or at leasi that he possessed the spirit in question. It 
cannot serve at all to determine who his readers were. 

(2) ‘The church at Alexandria appears early to have been, in a pecu- 
liar manner, partial to this epistle.’ 

The answer to this is, that partial as they were, yet none of the dis- 


32 § 10. WAS THE EPISTLE ADDRESSED 


tinguished writers at Alexandria, now known to us, have once suggested 
the idea that the epistle was directed to their church. How could they 
have all been unanimous in the opinion, that it was directed to the 
churches in Palestine, if it had been originally addressed to their own 
eburch ἢ ἢ 

(3) <The epistle to the Hebrews (now so named), was anciently called 
the epistle to the Alexandrians.’ 

This argument depends entirely on the testimony of an anonymous 
writer, (adduced by Muratori in his Antiqq. Ital. med. Aevi, Tom. III. p. 
854), who, after naming thirteen of Paul’s epistles, mentions one “ nomine 
Pauli ficta,” and circulated apud Alerandrinos. Of this testimony I shall 
take more particular notice in § 16. For the present, it is sufficient to 
ask, Where is the name of Paul, in our present epistle to the Hebrews ? 
And was his epistle current only apud Alerandrinos 2? And what Chris- 
tian fathers have once mentioned, that our epistle was current under the 
name of Paul? All have testified that it is anonymous. Besides all this, 
what testimony is there to show that the church at Alexandria was of a 
Judaizing spirit? All the knowledge we have of it leads us to believe 
directly the reverse of this. We cannot, therefore, build on the testi- 
mony of the anonymous writer in question, any argument that deserves 
serious regard. 

Boehme, in his recent work on the epistle to the Hebrews, contends 
(Prolegom. p. XXXII. seq.) for Antioch as the place to which this epistle 
was directed. But the condition of the church there, which was made 
up of Gentiles as well Jews, and was in a state of contention with regard 
to the ceremonial rites of the Levitical law, renders this altogether im- 
probable ; comp. Acts 11: 20 seq. 15: 1seq. Gal. 9: 11 seq. How can 
it be reasonably supposed, that not a single reference should be made, in 
all the epistle to the Hebrews, to such a state of things as these passages 
disclose? ‘The improbability is too great, one would think, to raise any 
serious doubt in the mind of any considérate and impartial critic. 


§10. Was it written to the church in Palestine 3 


I have now examined the most specious opinions which modern criticism 
has offered, in order to show that the epistle to the Hebrews was not di- 
rected to the church in Palestine, but to some church abroad. In ancient 
times, so far as I have been able to discover, there was but one opinion on 
this subject; and this has been adopted and defended by a majority of 
distinguished ciritics, in modern and recent times. This opinion is, that 
THE EPISTLE WAS ADDRESSED TO THE HEBREW CHURCH OF PALESTINE, 
We come now to examine, whether there is satisfactory evidence that 
this opinion is well founded. 

Many arguments have been employed to established this supposition, 
which appear to be incapable of bearing the test of examination. Lard- 
ner and Michaelis, who in many respects were able critics, have brought 
together a number of such arguments. A proper regard for the opinions 
of such men, seems to render it necessary to subject these arguments to 
a brief review. . 


TO THE CHURCH IN PALESTINE. 30 


(a) Lardner adduces Heb. 1: 2, God—hath in these last ins ΝᾺ unto 
us by his Son; which, he thinks, must designate those whom Christ per- 
sonally addressed, i. e. the Jews. 

But although it may have such a meaning it is equally plain that it may 
have a different one, viz. spoken unto Christians or to men im general. 
Thus the word us is in other places employed; 6. g. Luke 1:1, The 
things fully credited by us, i. e. by Christians. Comp. Rom. 5:8. 6:6. 
θυ 8 18 sas 4d) Cor. 8 xB9ie LO) οι Le SAF TO; 21, 22. 
2: 14. 4: 14, and a multitude of passages in the Concordance, under ἡμᾶς, 
ἡμεῖς, ete. See § 27.17, 

(0) ‘Heb. 4: 2, Unto vs is the gospel preached as well as unto them.’ 

To this passage the remarks just made will apply, with the same force 
as to Heb. 1: 2. 

(c) ‘Heb, 2: 1—4, How shall we escape if we neglect so great salvation, 
which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us 
by them that heard him; God also bearing them witness by signs and won- 
ders, etc. Now Palestine was the place where miracles were performed. 

But miracles were also performed out of Palestine, by those who had 
heard Christ, as well as in it. And how then can it be a proof, that 
those addressed in the passage under examination belonged exclusive- 
ly to Palestine? The meaning is (or at least may be), that Christiani- 
ty was confirmed to the men of that age, through the miracles which were 
wrought by the immediate disciples of Christ. This sentiment, of course, 
has nothing necessarily local attached to it. 

(d) ‘ Those addressed by the epistle to the Hebrews were well acquaint- 
ed with the sufferings of Christ; and so the Christians of Judea must have 
heen s).1): 3.2: 9, 18. D270. 92 A428) 102 12, 122 253. 13s 12? 

And so were all to whom the apostles preached. Christ crucified was 
the grand theme, the prominent subject, of apostolic preaching, 1 Cor. 
2:2. Gal. 6: 14. 

(6) ‘ Heb. 5: 12, But when for the time ye ought to be teachers of others, 
ye have need to learn the first principles; which most suitably applies to 
Christians in Judea, to whom the gospel was first preached.’ 

But if the epistle to the Hebrews was written after A. D. 60, (as is al- 
together probable, and as Lardner himself supposes), then the same thing 
might be said to many other churches out of Palestine, who were among 
the early converts. 

(f) ‘ What is said of apostates, in ch. 6: 4d—6 and 10: 26—29, is pecu- 
liarly applicable to apostates in Judea.’ 

But this may be very properly applied, also, to apostates elsewhere, in 
any other churches where the gospel had been fully preached, 

(g) Heb. 13: 13, 14, Let us therefore go forth to him [viz. Jesus] without 
the camp, bearing his reproach; for here we have no permanent city, but we 
seek one which is to come. ‘This, Lardner and Michaelis both suppose, was 
addressed to Christians in Jerusalem, warning them to flee from that city, 
because the destruction of it would speedily take place. 

But it seems quite plain to me, that this. passage is merely an exhorta- 
tion to self denial, and to patient endurance of suffering on account of 


94 § 10. WAS THE EPISTLE WRITTEN 


Christ, and after his example ; couched in figurative language, and applica- 
ble to Christians in general of that or any other time or place. 

(h) To these arguments Michaelis has added, Heb. 10 : 25—37 ; Exhort- 
ing one another ; and this so much the more, as ye see the day drawing near, 
— Yet a very little time, and he who is coming will come, and will not delay. 
This, Michaelis thinks, is a warning to Christians in Jerusalem, that the 
destruction of the city was near at hand. 

The obvious reply is, that the same consideration is addressed by Paul 
to churches and persons abroad; 6. g. to the Philippians, 4:53; to the 
Thessalonians, 1 Thess. 5: 2—6, also v. 23; to Timothy, 1 Tim. 6: 14, 
15; and by the apostle James, 5: 8, when writing to the twelve tribes 
dispersed abroad, How can such a warning, then, (admitting that the 
interpretation of it by Michaelis is correct), be considered as determining 
the locality of the epistle? The fall of Jerusalem surely would not en- 
danger the personal safety of those who lived in Macedonia, and other 
places abroad. 

(ὃ ‘Heb. 13: 9, It is good that the heart should be confirmed by grace, not 
by meais ; for those who are conversant with them are not profited. This 
must apply specially to the Jews of Palestine.’ 

But were there not Christian Jews in other places, superstitiously at- 
tached to doctrines concerning distinctions of meats and drinks? Were 
not such to be found at Rome, in Galatia, at Colosse? If so, how can 
this text apply exclusively to Jews in Palestine ? cnt 

On such arguments, then, dependance cannot well be placed, in order 
to establish the opinion which Michaelis and Lardner defend. It cannot 
be denied, indeed, that a peculiar significancy would be attached to sever- 
al of the passages that have now been examined, provided it could first 
be shewn that the epistle to the Hebrews was originally directed to Jews 
in Palestine. But it must be conceded, that these passages (in themselves 
considered) are not sufficiently discriminating, to determine the question 
whether it was so directed. If no other than such arguments can be 
adduced, then must we abandon the idea of being able to offer proof, 
which will satisfy a critical inquirer that the epistle to the Hebrews was 
directed to the Hebrews of Palestine. 

That such, however, was its first original direction, I am inclined to be+ 
lieve; and to this belief the following considerations have led me. 

(1) The inscription to this epistle most naturally leads to this supposition, 
and helps to strengthen it. 

I am willing to concede the point here, (for I think it may be shewn 
to the satisfaction of every one who is well acquainted with the princi- 
ples of critical inquiry), that this inscription is not a@ manu auctoris.* 
Such is not the manner of the epistles. They contain within themselves 
the direction which the writer gave them. Thus Rom. 1: 1—7, “ Paul 


* Prof. Bleek, in his recent work on the epistle to the Hebrews (I. p. 34), sup- 
poses that the author of our epistle must of course have given some address to it ; 
and that the present πρὸς “Εβραίους, if not an exact copy of the language of the 
original address, is for substance a copy of it. The same opinion he has also 
expressed, in a review of the first edition of my work, in the Haile Allgem. Litt. 
Zeitung, Erginz. Blatter, Jan. 1830. 


TO THE CHURCH IN PALESTINE ? 35 


an apostle... to the church at Rome; 1 Cor. 1: 1, 2, Paul an apostle... 
to the church of God at Corinth; Eph. 1:1, Paul an apostle... to the 
saints at Ephesus; James 1:1, James a servant of God, to the twelve 
tribes in dispersion; 1 Pet. 1: 1, Peter an apostle, to the sojourners in 
dispersion ; 2 John v. 1, The elder, to the elect lady; Jude v. 1, Judea 
servant of Jesus Christ... to those who are sanctified ;” and so of other 
epistles. Moreover there are reasons why the tiles of the sacred books 
in general, throughout the Old and New Testaments, should not be re- 
garded as coming from the hand of those who originally composed the 
books. Some of these inscriptions or titles are incongruous with the con- 
tents of the book, or chapter, to which they are prefixed. But one fact, 
on which I do not remember to have seen any comments made, is very 
striking. None of the New Testament writers, when they quote the 
Scriptures, ever appeal to the names of the Old 'Testament books. Noth- 
ing could have been more to their purpose, than to employ such names 
for the sake of guiding their readers, had they been at that time affixed to 
these books. But they have no where employed them. Even when 
they quote the prophets, it is evidently the name of the person who wrote, 
and not the name of a book as such, to which they appeal. 

Such is the universal practice of the New Testament writers; and such 
is that of Clemens Romanus, who wrote during the first century. In 
writing to the Corinthians, he names indeed the epistle of Paul to them ; 
for how could he do otherwise? But in all the numerous quotations which 
he makes of the other New Testament books, he does not once call any 
one of them by name. 

Such facts shew satisfactorily, that the present names of the Scriptural 
books did not exist in the apostolic age ; for had they existed, appeal had 
been made to them, for the same purpose and from the same necessity 
as we now make it every day. 

Admitting now that the inscription, 7 πρὸς Ἑβραίους ἐπιστολή, is not 
original, and that it was superadded by some later editor or transcriber of 
this epistle ; it is a very natural and pertinent question, /”hy was such a 
title given to the epistle in question? ‘The obvious answer must be this: 
Because the editor or transcriber who affixed this title to the epistle, sup- 
posed that it was intended for the Hebrews. And whoever the author of 
the title or inscription was, it is quite certain that he lived at an early 
period. Nor can there be any reasonable doubt, that he gave such a title 
to our epistle as agreed with the general tradition and common opinion of 
the Christian church at that period. For we find this title, not only in 
all our present Greek manuscripts, (which would not indeed settle the 
question of its very remote antiquity), but in all the early versions, e. g. 
the Syriac, and others; and also in the manuscripts of the old Itala, and 
the ante-Hieronymean Latin versions, the Codex Claromontanus and San 
Germanensis only excepted. There is, indeed, a catalogue of canonical 
books from the fragments of an anonymous author, who lived near the 
close of the second century, (published by Muratori in his Antiqq. Ital. 
Tom. III. p. 854, and adverted to on p. 32 above), in which the epistle to 
the Hebrews is supposed to be called [epistola] apud Alexandrinos. But 
the whole passage of this writer is so obscure, and his ignorance respect- 
ing the contents of the epistle to the Hebrews so profound, (as will here- 


90 Δ΄ Ο. was THE EPISTLE WRITTEN 


after be shewn, § 16), that nothing is to be abated on his account from the 
statement which has just been exhibited. The fathers of the second cen- 
tury give the same title to our epistle which it now has; for it is by this — 
name, that Pantaenus, Clemens Alexandrinus, Tertullian, and Origen, 
(with the whole series of fathers after them), make their appeal to it. 
This shews beyond reasonable doubt, that from whatever source the title 
arose, it arose early, and early became general or rather universal in the 
church, wherever the epistle was received. 

But although the fact is certain in respect to the early origin and cur- 
rency of this title, one question remains, about which there has been no 
small dispute among critics. What is the meaning of the word Hebrews ? 
Does this name apply only to the Jews of Palestine, who spoke the He- 
brew language? Or is it equally applicable to all the descendants of 
the Hebrews, who lived in foreign countries and adhered to the Jewish 
religion? On this question turns the whole evidence to be derived from 
the title, in respect to the main subject under consideration, If the first 
be true, then does it show, that soon after the epistle was written, the 
church in general believed it to have been directed to the Jews in Pales- 
tine ; if the second, then it does not at all help to shew, whether the ear- 
ly church held it to be written to the Christian community of Hebrews in 
Palestine or out of it. Viewed in this light, the question as to the mean- 
ing of the word Hebrews becomes a matter of no inconsiderable impor- 
tance, and should therefore be radically investigated. 

The writers of the New Testament may be fairly presumed to have 
used the word Hebrew, according to the prevailing usus loquendi of the 
times when they wrote ; and in all probability, too, of the time when the 
title was given to our epistle, which could not be long afterwards. But 
they have uniformly employed it to designate the Palestine Jews, or those 
who had imbibed their opinions and spoke their language. In Acts6: 1, 
the Palestine Christians are expressly called “EGgcitou, in contradistinction 
from the foreign Jews who are called Ἑλληνισταί ; there arose a murmuring 
of the Heiientists against the Hesrews, because their widows were neg- 
lected in the daily administration. In conformity with this passage, (which 
is fundamental in the question now under consideration), the dialect of 
Palestine is repeatedly called “Efi or “Εβραϊκός in the New Testament ; 
6. g. Acts 21: 40. 22:2. Luke 23: 38. John 5:2. 19: 18,17. Agreea- 
bly to this, “Εβραΐζειν means, to speak or write Hebrew ; as Josephus says, 
τὰ tov Καίσαρος διήγγειλε “Εβραΐζων, Bell. Jud. vr. 2, 1. e. he narrated Cae- 
sar’s history in the Hebrew tongue. 'To have a knowledge of the Hebrew 
language and to speak it, was deemed among the Jews a matter of great 
importance or a very valuable acquisition, Acts 21:40. 22:2. Hence 
Paul, when speaking of the ground of precedence which he might claim 
above the false teachers at Philippi, says, that he is a Hebrew of the He- 
brews, Phil. 3: 5, i.e. one of full Hebrew descent, and acquainted with 
the Hebrew language. Although he was born at Tarsus, he was brought 
up at the feet of Gamaliel in Jerusalem, Acts 22:3. To this same fact 
he seems to appeal again in a similar case, 2 Cor. 11: 22, Are they He- 
brews 2? So am ΓΚ 


* Bleek, in his Review (ut supra), has expressed the opinion, that the word He- 


TO THE CHURCH IN PALESTINE 7 37 


With this usus loquendi of the New Testament agree other facts, which 
seem to place the question beyond reasonable doubt, as to what the usage 
of the apostolic age was, in respect to the meaning of the word in question. 

The Hebrew Christians of Palestine early possessed a spurious gospel, 
which long continued to have currency among them. Universal consent 
gave to this gospel, written in the Syro-Chaldaic or Palestine dialect of 
the time, the name Evayyéhuoy καϑ' “Ἑβραίους ; evidently because it was 
used or approved by people of Palestine, who spoke the so called Hebrew 
language. The early fathers, it is well known, drew the conclusion from 
the title to our epistle, that it was originally written in the Hebrew lan- 
guage. ‘Thus Irenaeus asserts, that ‘‘ Matthew wrote his gospel ἐν τοῖς 
“Ἑβραίοις τὴ ἰδίᾳ αὐτῶν διαλέκτῳ," advers. Haeret. IIT. 1; Clemens Alex- 
andrinus asserts, that it was written “Ἑβραίοις “Εβραικὴ φωνῇ, and interpret- 
ed by others; in Euseb. H. Ecc, VI. 14. In the same way Eusebius de- 
clares, that it was addressed Ἑβραίοις διὰ τῆς πατρίου γλώττης, to the He- 
brews in their native tongue, Hist. Kee. IIL. 28; and again, “ Matthew, 
having first preached “ESgetos... delivered to them his gospel πατρίῳ 
γλώττῃ," IT. 24; and Jerome says, that Paul wrote ut Hebraeus Hebraeis 
Hebraice, i. e. as a Hebrew to the Hebrews, in the Hebrew language ; Catal. 
Scriptt. verb. Paulus. 

Now how could these fathers reason thus, unless they had understood 
the word Hebrews as necessarily meaning, according to the usus loquendi 
of that age, those who spoke the Hebrew language ? ᾿ 

Bertholdt declares boldly, that not a single example can be found, in 
early times, of Jewish Christians out of Palestine being called Hebrews, 
Einleit. p. 2875. I would express my own conviction in a more guarded 
manner, and say, I have not been able to find any instance where this is 
the case, 

Yet Eichhorn has ventured to assert, that the name Hebrew never has any 
reference to language, but always to religion or origin. His proof is, first, 
a passage from Eusebius’ Hist. ec. III. 4, in which the historian asserts, 
that Peter addressed his epistle πρὸς τοὺς ἐξ “Ἑβραίων ὄντας ἐν διασπορᾷ 
πόντου. But this implies simply, that those whom Peter addressed were 
descended from the Hebrews, or belonged to those of the circumcision. 
Another passage to which he appeals, is in Philo (de Abrahamo, p. 388 
D. edit. Par.), where he says, that Sarah advised Abraham to take as a con- 
cubine [Hagar], who was by descent an Egyptian, τὴν te προαΐρησιν 
“EBooiuy, but by choice a Hebrew; which he construes as meaning, who 
had embraced the religion of the Hebrews. But the antithesis here does not 
admit of this sense. By descent she was of the Egyptian nation, but by 
choice she attached herself to the Hebrew nation, is plainly the meaning of 
the passage ; so that it fails altogether of affording ground for the conclu- 
sion which Eichhorn adduces from it. 

Carpzotl, to whom Eichhorn is indebted for this quotation, has adduc- 


brew, in these two last named texts, can mean only a Jacobite, i.e. a descendant of 
Abraham through Jacob. But if we compare Acts 21: 40. 22: 22, it seems to 
me that we shall find some reason to believe, that Paul meant not only to say 
that he was a Jacobite, but a genuine Hebrew man in every important respect. 
Would not this include the power of speaking the Hebrew language ? 


/ 


98 § 10. WAs THE EPISTLE WRITTEN 


ed several others, to shew that the word Hebrew is used to characterize 
the religion of the Jews, rather than their language or nation, Exercitt. in 
Heb. Prolog. c. 1. But so far are they from affording satisfaction to 
my mind, that I do not think them worthy the labour of an examination 
in this place. 

The result of this inquiry is, then, that Ἑβραῖοι, in the inscription to 
our epistle, means, and according to the usus loquendi of the age must 
mean, the Hebrews of Palestine, i. e. Hebrews in a country where the He- 
brew language was vernacular. But even if examples may be found, in 
which the word Hebrew designates merely an Israelite, still, it is clear that 
such cannot be the meaning of the word in the title to our epistle ; for 
how can this epistle be supposed to be addressed to all the Israelites of 
every country ? 

If [ have offered sufficient evidence to establish this, then does the title 
to our epistle go far towards shewing what the original destination of the 
epistle was. If an ancient epistle has no direction within itself, and con- 
tains no unequivocal passages indicative of locality, im what way can we 
ascertain the original direction of it better than by tradition? Do we not 
appeal in all similar cases to tradition, in order to shew when and where 
authors were born, lived, and wrote? Where and when books were writ- 
ten? And seldom, indeed, can we trace back tradition, in a manner so 
satisfactory and definite, as in the case just considered. 

Thus much for the external testimony, in regard to the opinion that 
Palestine was the place to which our epistle was directed ; the voice of 
antiquity, and the title of the letter, constituting strong presumptive evi- 
dence that such was the case. But does the internal condition of the 
epistle itself agree with this? And does this furnish no objections, which 
will overbalance the weight of tradition? Something must be said rela- 
tive to these questions, before we can make our ultimate conclusion. I 
proceed then, 

(2) Το examine whether the internal condition of the epistle agrees 
with and confirms the supposition, which I am now endeavouring to de- 
fend. 

The most superficial reader cannot help being impressed, on a slight 
reading of this epistle, with the idea that it is addressed to Jewish con- 
verts. In respect to this, indeed, all critics, ancient and modern, are of 
one opinion. But a close examination discloses a peculiarity of appeal, 
in this epistle, to the Mosaic ritual, which can be found no where else in 
the New Testament. 

In the Acts of the Apostles, and in the acknowledged epistles of Paul, 
we find, indeed, numerous traces of dispute and difficulty with Jews, 
who lived in countries remote from Palestine. But the disputed ques- 
tions turn upon points of circumcision, of meats clean and unclean, points 
which respected the sabbaths, and the holidays that the Jews had been 
accustomed to observe. Concerning the priesthood, the temple, and the 
ritual of sacrifices, we find no questions of difficulty agitated. 

The obvious reason of this seems to be, that but very few of the for- 
eign Jews, regularly, or even at all attended the services of the temple. 
The great body of those who lived in the countries more distant from 


TO THE CHURCH IN PALESTINE ? 39 


Palestine, plainly could not attend the feast at Jerusalem three times in 
each year, according to the prescription of Moses. The time and expens- 
es necessary to do this, could not be spared. 

This is not a matter of mere conjecture. We know that the most nu- 
merous colony of Jews, any where to be found at that period, as well as the 
most learned and rich, was that at Alexandria in Egypt. Hither they had 
been transplanted, about 284 years A. C. by Ptolemy Philadelphus, who 
had over-run Palestine with his army. They were allowed great privi- 
leges, under the reign of this prince ; so that many were allured to Egpyt 
in his time, and the number of Jews in that country became quite large. 
Under Ptolemy Philometer, not far from 175 A. C., Onias, son of the 
high priest Onias at Jerusalem, who had fled to Egypt for safety, asked 
leave of Ptolemy and his queen Cleopatra, to build a temple at Leontopo- 
lis in that country, which was a town in the Nome or Prefecturate of 
Heliopolis.* This leave he obtained; and there he built a temple, and 
constituted priests and Levites as ministers for its service. In his petition 
for obtaining this liberty he states, that while on his military expeditions 
in the service of the king, he had seen temples used by the Jews for their 
religious services in Coelosyria, Phenicia, Leontopolis and other places, 
Joseph. Antiq. Jud. xi. 6 edit. Colon, Allowing this statement to be 
true it would appear, that at least many of these foreign Jews had then 
already lost their zeal for attendance on the temple worship at Jerusalem. 
That the Jews in Egypt did not, in general, attend the feasts at Jerusa- 
lem, is well known. ‘They only sent an occasional deputy there, by 
way of testifying their respect and fraternal sympathy. 

If the Jews in Egypt did thus, we may well suppose that the Jews at 
a greater distance from Palestine, imitated them in their remissness with 
respect to attendance on the temple worship at Jerusalem. 'The nature 
of the case shews, that as a body they could not have been habitually 
present at the holy feasts ; and that most of them, indeed, never frequent- 
ed Jerusalem at all. In fact, this city could not have accommodated the 
one fourth part of the worshippers from abroad, had all the foreign Jews 
gone up to the feasts held there. 

The natural consequence of not being familiar with the temple rites 
and priesthood, was a diminution of zeal in the foreign Jews with respect 
to things of this nature ; until, in the end, they became to them matters of 


* Such was the situation of Leontopolis, if the statement of Josephus (Antiqq. 
XITI. 6) is to be trusted; and he repeats the same in Bell. Jud. VII. 30, edit. 
Colon. But suspicion has arisen of error in his statement, inasmuch as no Latin 
or Greek writer mentions a Leontopolis in the Nome of Heliopolis, i. e. east of 
the Delta. The Leontopolis of the Greeks and Romans was within the Delta, 
between the Mendesian and Phatnitic branches of the Nile, and not far from 
Busiris. Cellarius (p. 782) places it below, i.e. north of Busiris. But inasmuch as 
Josephus expressly states the distance from Memphis to be over 180 stadia (224 
Roman miles), which, if Leontopolis were near Heliopolis, would correspond well 
with fact; and inasmuch as Leontopolis (Onion) was so well known among the 
Jews in the time of Josephus, because of the temple there, his testimony can- 
not well be rejected. We must admit, therefore, that there were once two pla- 
ces of this name in Egypt ; the one of which, after the building of the temple by 
Onias, took the name of Onion oceasionally, and finally was known altogether 
by this name. 


40 § 10. was THE EPISTLE WRITTEN 


minor importance, or even of comparative indifference. Hence Paul had 
no disputes with the foreign Jews about these things. At least, no marks 
of such disputes appear in the history of this apostle by Luke, nor in the 
letters of Paul himself. 

But here is a point, respecting which the epistle to the Hebrews differs 
widely from all the other epistles of the New Testament. -It is not with 
the question whether circumcision is to be retained or rejected, not with 
the dispute about meats offered to idols, not with prescriptions about new 
moons and sabbaths, that the writer is concerned. The whole epistle 
turns on different subjects. It is the favorite idea of preéminence, so te- 
naciously attached by zealous Jews to all parts of the Mosaic ritual, which 
the writer discusses. The dignity or rank of those, through whose me- 
diation the law was given; the temple-apartments, furniture, rites, and 
sacrifices ; the order and honour of the priesthood; in a word, the whole 
apparatus of the Levitical service, both daily and annual, are the subjects 
of which he treats; and the things which he compares with the corres- 
ponding parts of the Christian dispensation, in order to shew the superi- 
ority of the latter. Were angels employed in order to introduce the law ? 
Christ, who has obtained a name and place far more exalted than they, 
himself introduced the new dispensation. Was Moses the beloved and 
honoured leader of God’s chosen people, placed at the head of the Jewish 
dispensation ? He was placed there as a servant; but Christ, at the head 
of the new dispensation, as a Son. Was the high priest of the Jews a 
mediator between God and the people, who offered up their annual pro- 
pitiatory sacrifice, and went into the holy of holies, into the immediate 
presence of the Divinity, on their account ? The office of this high priest, 
from its very nature and from the brevity of human life, was short and 
limited ; but Christ is high priest forever, he has entered the holy of holies 
in the highest heavens, and has once for all offered a propitiatory sacrifice 
of everlasting efficacy, Was the temple a magnificent structure, the sa- 
cred character of which inspired awe? Magnificent and sacred as it was, 
it was merely a copy of the temple in which Jesus officiates, reared by 
God himself, and eternal in the heavens. Was the blood of goats and 
bullocks annually presented before the shrine of Jehovah, by the Jewish 
high priest, on the great day of atonement? Jesus, by his own blood, 
entered the sanctuary of the eternal temple, and made an atonement which 
needs not to be repeated. Ina word, were all the implements of temple- 
service, all which pertained to the order and persons of the priesthood, 
venerable and holy? All these things were merely similitudes of the 
more perfect temple and priesthood of him, who is the great high-priest 
of the Christian dispensation. 

Who now entertained the particular views in respect to the Mosaic 
ritual, which the writer thus brings into comparison? To whom could 
the writer of the epistle to the Hebrews (as he constantly does) appeal, as 
being familiarly acquainted with every thing that pertained even to the 
minutest parts of the Jewish ritual, and priesthood, and sacred places, and 
utensils, and the very location of these utensils? To whom I ask, but to 
the Palestine Jews? It must be to those, who from childhood were fa- 
miliar with all these objects, and who had been inspired by education 


TO THE CHURCH IN PALESTINE ! 41 


with the most profound reverence for them, and with zeal to maintain 
their importance. 

Why are not these subjects brought into view, in Paul’s letters to oth- 
er churches ? Disputes he had with the Jews; as the epistles to the Ro- 
mans, Corinthians, Galatians, Colossians and Thessalonians, in a word, as 
all his epistles, testify. But not about the temple ritual, and priesthood, 
and holy places, and utensils. The disputes concerned other rites of Ju- 
daism, which could be generally practised by Hebrews living in foreign 
countries ; and not those, in which only a few devotees would feel a par- 
ticular interest. 

I cannot resist the impression, when I read the 7th, 8th, 9th, and 10th 
chapters of the epistle to the Hebrews, that the appeal is made to those, 
who have an intimate knowledge of, and strong jealousy for, the honour 
of the whole Mosaic ritual there brought to view. I am fully aware, that 
pilgrims (so to speak) annually resorted from all parts of the world where 
the Jews were settled, to Jerusalem. So they do still. But how few 
must these have been, from countries more remote. ‘The supposition 
that the great body of the church, or the whole church, addressed in the 
epistle to the Hebrews, (if these Hebrews belonged to foreign countries), 
possessed the intimate personal knowledge of the Jewish ritual, holy pla- 
ces, and utensils, which the writer evidently supposes those to possess 
whom he addresses, does, in itself considered, seem to be very improbable. 

It is rendered still more so, by some additional facts which ought to 
be here stated. In the latter part of Paul’s ministry, his disputes abroad 
about Judaism appear to have generally subsided, and he was every where 
received by the foreign churches with great cordiality and affection. It 
was only at the first planting of the churches abroad, at the period when 
the transition was to be made from Judaism to Christianity, (which was 
indeed a great transition in respect to externals), that disputes arose, and 
passions were awakened, which occasioned much trouble and anxiety 
to the apostle. More light and a better understanding of the nature of 
Christianity appeased these disputes, wherever Judaism had not the 
strong grasp which the constant practice of the ritual gave it. 

Not so in Palestine. 'The very last visit which the apostle made there, 
before he was sent a prisoner to Rome, occasioned a tumult among the 
zealots for the law ; who even joined in persecuting him. “ Thou seest, 
brother,” said the other apostles to him, “how many thousand Jews are 
become believers, and they are all ζηλωταὶ τοῦ νόμου," zealots for the observ- 
ance of the law, Acts 21:20; the correctness of which sentiment was 
abundantly confirmed by the sequel. That zealots for the law here means 
particularly the Jews of Palestine, is evident from y. 21 which follows. 

That the Palestine Christians adhered with far greater tenacity to the 
Jewish ritual than the Jews abroad, is clearly shown moreover by the 
fact, that while the foreign Jews soon abandoned altogether the rites of 
Judaism, the zealots for the Mosaic ritual in Palestine even separated, at 
last, from the community of other Christians, rejected all the epistles of 
Paul from the canon of the New Testament, and retained in all their 
strictness the ceremonies of the law. I refer to the sect of the Ebionites, 
(I might add, at least in many respects, the Nazarenes), the first party 


6 


42 § 10. wAs THE EPISTLE WRITTEN 


shine rent cade the church of Christ; and high ay not ee at all 
with the catholic spirit of Paul’s preaching and epistles. 

All these circumstances united have strongly impressed me with ἫΝ 
idea, that the whole texture and manner of the epistle to the Hebrews 
almost of necessity imply, that those to whom it was originally addressed 
were in general habitual attendants on the services of the temple, and inti- 
mately aud personally acquainted with all its rites and ceremonies. Of 
course [ must regard them as belonging to Palestine, or to its near neigh- 
bourhood. 

In addition to these considerations, which apply generally to the epistle 
in question, there appear to be some particular references made to cir- 
cumstances, which would seem to presuppose a personal and familiar 
knowledge, on the part of those addressed, with objects in and about Je- 
rusalem and the temple. E. g. when the writer says, 13: 12, “ Where- 
fore Jesus, that he might purify the people by his own blood, suffered 
without the gate,” viz. the gate through which criminals were led to exe- 
cution, this implies, that the readers were supposed to be acquainted 
with the locality of Jerusalem. And in 9: 5, after recounting the apart- 
ments and various sacred utensils of the temple, the writer says: Con- 
cerning which things it is not necessary (οὐκ ἔστι), to speak particularly ; by 
which an appeal is tacitly made to the knowledge of his readers, 
that would seem to imply a local and personal acquaintance with the cir- 
cle of objects to which he alludes ; although I acknowledge this interpre- 
tation is not a necessary one. 

I freely grant that these circumstances are not so peculiar and exclusive, 
that it is impossible to apply them to Jews, who resided abroad and habit- 
ually visited Jerusalem. But where was the community abroad, who as 
a body did this? And then, probability and not demonstration is what 
we seek for, in an argument of this nature. If demonstration, or what is 
equivalent to it, had been found in the epistle itself, there had not been 
such endless dispute about it. 

It is a striking fact, also, that Jews only are addressed throughout the 
epistle. Where were the churches abroad that consisted only of Jews? 
[ am aware that this argument may be met by asking the question : Could 
not the writer address the Jewish part of a church abroad, and not the 
Gentile? The possibility of this cannot be denied. The probability that 
it was so, does not, in this case, seem to be very great. For is it not 
natural to suppose, that the Gentile part of the church would have been 
more or less infected with the feelings of the Jewish part; and that some 
of them, at least, would have also been in danger of apostasy? Could 
the writer, who shews such deep solicitude to prevent this awful catas- 
trophe, fail to have warned his Gentile brethren against their danger ; 
and to have exhorted and encouraged them to persevere? If this be 
possible, we must still grant, when we consider the characteristics of the 
writer, that it is at least highly improbable. 

Nor can it be alleged, as an adequate reply to this, that the epistles to 
the Ephesians and Galatians are exclusively addressed to Gentile con- 
verts. For in regard to the first, no such urgent and fundamental ques- 
tion, as that treated of in the epistle to the Hebrews, comes under discus- 


ΤῸ THE CHURCH IN PALESTINE ! 43 
' 


sion. It is probable, moreover, that by far the greater part of this church 
were Gentiles. And with respect to the epistle to the Galatians, although 
Storr has assumed as a point which admits of no question, that it is di- 
rected to Gentile converts only, yet Noesselt (as we have seen) is of opin- 
ion, that it is addressed altogether to Jewish converts, and he says that no 
one except Beausobre denies this, Opusc. Fascic. I. p. 293. Neither he 
nor Storr can establish their respective opinions, from the contents of the 
epistle. Most apparent is it, that in general converts from the heathen 
are addressed. But when the apostle says, Gal. 4: 9, “Why should ye 
turn again to the weak and beggarly elements of the world, to which ye 
desire again to be in bondage,” viz. to the Jewish ritual, can he address 
only converts from the heathen? And when he says too, 5: 1, “ Be not 
again entangled in the yoke of bondage,” can he address only those who 
were formerly heathen? An appeal, then, to the epistles addressed to 
the Ephesians and Galatians, as being exclusively addressed to only one 
part of churches made up of both Jews and Gentiles, is not satisfactory 
in the case before us; for the Galatian church is plainly addressed as a 
mixed body; and the church at Ephesus appears to have been principally 
made up of Gentiles. It is not comparing par cum: pari. The peculiar 
circumstances of which the epistle to the Hebrews treats, shew that a 
warning to the Gentile part of that church to whom it was sent, if such 
church were among the Gentiles and consisted in part of them, was a 
thing to all appearance of indispensable necessity. 

Here then is another circumstance which contributes to render it pro- 
bable, that some church in Palestine was addressed by the epistle to the 
Hebrews. It is possible that there may have been some churches abroad 
wholly made up of Jews; but history has given no account of any such ; 
and not only the possibility but the probability of it must be shewn, be- 
fore the argument now adduced is deprived of its force. 

Again ; the persons addressed are requested to “call to mind their suf- 
ferings in former days, when they were first enlightened, and when they 
took joyfully the spoiling of their goods,” and suffered other evils from 
persecution, 10: 32, 34. This, indeed, may possibly have been true of 
other churches abroad ; but we have no historical information of perse- 
cutions abroad, in the earliest age of Christianity, which were permitted 
by the civil government to proceed so far as to destroy or confiscate 
property, and to imprison persons for any length of time. Palestine was 
the place for such occurrences, from the very first. I am aware thai 
Paul went with a commission to Damascus, that he might cast Chris- 
tians into prison. But the very terms of that commission, directed him 
to bring those whom he should apprehend “bound to Jerusalem,” Acts 
9:2. Indeed it is plainly the case, that at this period the Roman magis- 
tracy every where abroad opposed persecution; for it was contrary to 
the established maxims of the Roman government, to intermeddle with 
the religion of their provinces. Often did this magistracy interfere, to 
protect Christians whom the violence of the Jews had assailed ; Acts 18: 
12—17. 19: 35—40. Acts xxi. ete. Still I have admitted it to be possi- 
ble, that such early persecution as the epistle to the Hebrews speaks of, 
may have taken place abroad; but this has not been rendered probable, 


44 § 10. WAs THE EPISTLE WRITTEN 


by the production of any historical records which testify to it. 'The soli- 
tary instance of Antipas at Pergamos, Rev. 2: 13, is the only one I have 
been able to find. In all probability, he, like Stephen, was destroyed by 
the rage of a lawless mob. Of course, until more evidence on this sub- 
ject can be produced, the argument from the passage in our epistle which 
has just been cited, adds no inconsiderable weight to the evidence in fa- 
vour of the supposition that I am endeavouring to defend. 

(3) If it can be rendered probable that Paul wrote the epistle to the 
Hebrews, [ should think it almost certian that it must have been written 
to Jews in Palestine; for throughout the whole epistle, there is not one 
word which shews the writer to have been their religious teacher. What 
church abroad could be thus addressed by Paul? For what one had not 
been either planted or nurtured by him? I do not deny the possibility of 
there having been some one; but the evidence that there actually was, at 
the time when our epistle was written, [ have not been able to find. 

And besides this, it is peculiar to the epistle to the Hebrews, that not 
one word is said which implies that their teachers were lacking in any 
thing, pertaining either to the knowledge or the duties demanded by their 
office. All is commendation. How natural is this, and easy to be ac- 
counted for, if these teachers were apostles or immediate disciples of 
Christ himself; and such were the teachers of the churches in Palestine. 
On the whole, this is a circumstance which increases the probability of 
the opinion that I am assaying to defend. 

Internal evidence, then, is not wanting, which accords with the testi- 
mony given by the inscription to the epistle to the Hebrews. Indeed, the 
concurrence of both kinds of evidence is such, as to afford grounds of 
probability as strong as could be expected in regard to a question of this 
nature, which respects a matter so ancient and so difficult. Direct and 
positive preof, incapable of being in any way questioned or contradicted, 
can neither be required nor justly expected. But there is evidence enough, 
as it appears to me, to render the opinion of the ancient church, that the 
epistle to the Hebrews was directed to Christians in Palestine, altogether 
probable. 

Objections against this opinion, however, drawn from the epistle itself, 
have been often and strongly urged by critics of late ; and these eannot, 
with due respect to the authors of them, be passed over im silence. 

Oxssection 1. ‘ Heb. 2: 3, “How shall we escape if we neglect so great 
salvation, which ai the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was con- 
firmed unto us by them that heard him.” From this passage it appears, 
that Christ had not personally taught those to whorn this epistle is ad- 
dressed ; they had only been instructed by those who heard him, viz. the 
apostles and immediate disciples of Christ.’ 

{t is remarkable that this same verse is adduced and relied on by Lard- 
ner, to support the opinion that the Hebrews of Palestine only could have 
been addressed by it; and by Storr, to prove that those could not have 
been the persons addressed. The argument is equally valid in both 
cases, I. 6. it amounts to nothing in either. For the simple statement of 
the text is, ‘ How can we escape punishment, if we neglect the gospel first 
published by the Lord of glory in person, and then abundantly confirmed 


TO THE CHURCH IN PALESTINE ? 45 


by miracles which were wrought by the apostles and immediate disciples 
of Christ.’ 

Now this might be said to any church of that period, in any country ; 
and to any church on earth, from that period down to the present hour. 
Of course it determines nothing relative to the question, whether our 
epistle was directed to a church in or out of Palestine. 

Oss. 2. ‘ Heb, 12: 4, “ Ye have not resisted unto blood, striving against 
sin,” i. 6. against injurious and unjust opposition. How could this be 
said to the church at Jerusalem, who had been called to witness the 
martyrdom of Stephen and others, and the bloody death of James; and 
who had lived in the fire of persecution, ever since its first establish- 
ment ?” 

This argument has appeared so conclusive to many critics, that they 
have abandoned the idea of supporting the ancient opinion, that our epis- 
tle was directed to the church in Palestine. Its first appearance inclined 
me to the same conclusion. A more particular examination of it, how- 
ever, has led me to doubt altogether of its validity. 

“Call to mind,” says the writer, “your severe afflictions in former 
days, when ye were first enlightened,” 10: 32—34. That is, your former 
persecutions which were severe, ye bore with patience and cheerfulness, 
although ye suffered imprisonment and loss of property. Now indeed 
ye are tried, continues the writer, but not in the highest degree. “Ye 
have not yet resisted unto blood.” How then does the history of the 
church in Palestine comport with these sentiments? A question which 
must necessarily be investigated here. 

The first persecution was that which arose at the time of Stephen’s 
martyrdom, Acts vi. vir. This happened probably in A. 1). 37 or 38. 
During this persecution many were imprisoned, severely beaten, and sub- 
jected to various insults and outrages but there is no satisfactory evi- 
dence that any blood was shed, except that of Stephen. Paul, in giving 
an account of his former conduct, says that he persecuted Christianity 
unto death, Acts 22:4; which was in fact the case with respect to 
Stephen, and no doubt he designed to do so in respect to many others. 
But in telling us what he actually effected, jhe says, that he arrested 
Christians, beat them in the synagogues, Act 22: 4, 19, compelled them 
to blaspheme, and shut them up in prison, Acts 26: 10,11. But the 
voice of Jesus arrested him, on his way to Damascus ; and in confessing 
his crime, he avows that he imprisoned believers and beat them in the 
synagogues. But he does not state that he was guilty of blood, except in 
the case of Stephen, Acts 22: 19, 20. ΑΒ this passage contains, we have 
reason to believe, a full confession of his guilt, it may serve to explain 
the doubtful passage in Acts 26: 10, where he says when they were slain 
(ἀναιρουμένων αὐτῶν), I gave my vote against them. The plural number 
here (ἀναιρουμένων) has led many to suppose, that Paul was concerned in 
Jrequent murders. But any one versed in the narrations of the New 
Testament, cannot but know that the plural number is sometimes used to 
designate the occurrence of facts, in which only one person is concerned 
as the agent, i. e. where the sense of the passage requires it to be under- 
stood in the same way as the singular would be. It is thus that the 


40 § 10. ννὰβ THE EPISTLE WRITTEN 


thieves on the cross are said to have reviled the Saviour, although only 
one of them did so, Matt. 27: 44. Mark 15: 32, comp. Luke 23: 39; thus 
that the demoniacs at Gadara are said to have been exceedingly fierce, 
when only one of them was so, Matt. 8: 28—34, comp. Mark 5: 1—18. 
Luke 8: 26—88; and thus, in-other cases presented by the Scriptures,* 


* See Matt. 20: 30—34, and comp. Mark 10: 46—52. Luke 18: 35—43. See 
also Matt. 28: 1. Mark 16: 1, 2, with which comp. Luke 24:1, 9,10, and John 
20: 1,11,18. Prof. Bleek indeed, in his Review (Allg. Lit. Zeit. Erg. B. Jan. 
1830), has objected to the analogy of all the instances above produced, with the 
ἀναιρουμένων αὐτῶν in Acts 26:10. He allows that this latter phrase may well 
be understood in a general indeterminate sense, without any necessity of an 
(individually) plural meaning ; and he remarks, that the speaker must of course 
have been conscious still, in his own mind, whether one or more than one was 
really meant. But in the other cases, in the text and in the instances above cited 
in this note, of analogous usage as to the mode of expression, he thinks it is 
clear that the writers differ from each other in expression, because they differed 
in respect to actual knowledge. E.g. Matthew in 27: 44, and Mark in 15: 32, 
state that the thieves (plural) reviled the Saviour on the cross; and this, because 
they (the Evangelists) believed that both of them did so; while Luke, in 23: 
39—43, gives a particular account which shews, that probably only one of these 
malefactors was concerned in reviling Jesus. Now, not to speak at all of that 
“ guidance by the Spirit’? which the Saviour promised to his disciples (John 
14:16, 17,26. 15: 26. 16: 13), or at least to his apostles, of whom Matthew was 
one, and which I know not whether Prof. Bleek admits or rejects; it would 
seem to be incredible in itself, yea utterly incredible, that Matthew did not 
know the real facts, in respect to the demeanour of the malefactors in question. 
Were there not disciples present at the crucifixion? John 19: 25—27. And 
during so extraordinary and deeply interesting a scene, is it possible that the be- 
haviour of the thieves should not be noted by the beloved disciple of Jesus, and 
by his own mother, who remained close by the cross until the very last moments 
of Jesus’ life, John 19: 25—30. Yet this same disciple has not said a word in 
regard to the behaviour of the malefactors ; he has merely noted, that two others 
were crucified with Jesus, 19:18. Matthew, and Mark after him, on the other 
hand, have noted that Jesus was reviled by the thieves; and simply noted this, 
by using the plural number, which is so often used in narration where the writer 
means to give only a general account without going into particulars. In exact 
accordance with this, we speak in common parlance; e.g.‘ The mob assaulted 
him,’ in case one of them, or two, or a few of them made the assault. So we 
say: ‘The French do this; the English do that;’ when only the individuals 
concerned in the executive government of France and England have done it. 
Prof. Bleek certainly has not yet to learn, that a narration intended to be general, 
and general only, may be made out by using the singular or plural number of 
verbs, just as the writer chooses, and yet there be no mistake or deception about 
it, nor any defect of knowledge in the writer. 

Why one evangelist should prefer to narrate in a general way, while another 
goes into particulars, is another question. In the present case, for example, why 
have Matthew and Mark related in general terms, while Luke has gone into 
particulars? Why has John omitted both kinds of narration, i. 6. taken no no- 
tice at all of the behaviour of the malefactors? Why has Luke inserted many 
important narrations, which the other Evangelists have omitted? And vice 
vers, why have Matthew and John done the same? It is easy enough to ask 
such questions ; and as easy to see, that the answer to them can never be, that 
the writers were ignorant of all facts which they have not related. This is 
utterly improbable, nay absolutely impossible. Did not John and Matthew, both 
apostles and personal attendants on the Saviour, know more about him than 
they have related? The answer to this may be found in John 2) : 25. 

It is not want of knowledge, then, that is the cause, at any rate this is not the 


TO THE CHURCH IN PALESTINE? ~ 47 


and (I may add) by other writings also, too numerous to be here recount- 
ed. Nothing is said, in the history of the first persecution, of any Chris- 


only cause, of diversity as to matter and manner among the Evangelists. It 
depends on other causes, and must be sought for in the different views, impres- 
sions, and objects of the respective writers in regard to some particulars of their 
accounts, while they are all perfectly united in the same general object; differ- 
ent, I mean, not in the sense of being contradictory, but diverse in regard to the 
strength of impression which they made, or diverse in their appearance to the 
mind, because they were contemplated from positions that were different. 

In accordance with what is now remarked, we find the account of the de- 
moniacs (in Matt. 8: 283—34 and in the parallel passages), related in the plural 
by Matthew, and in the singular by Mark and Luke. How happens this? Not 
for want of knowledge in Matthew, who plainly was present on the occasion 
referred to, and must have known its true nature. But how could Luke and 
Mark relate the story of only one demoniac? I answer, that probably it is be- 
cause one was the principal agent in the whole transaction, and was the special 
subject of the story. The occurrence is thus related generally (if I may so 
express myself) by them; while Matthew, who was present, goes into particu- 
lars, and tells us of more than one demoniac. That he ascribes fierceness to 
both, results of course from his mode of narration, (just what is every day prac- 
tised), i. e. from ascribing to those associated the actions of one individual among 
them. 

The same remarks may be made on Matt. 20: 30—34, and the parallel pas- 
sages ; where the diversity is just the same, Matthew using the plural,and Mark 
and Luke the singular. It is evident that Matthew was himself present, on this 
occasion ; comp. Matt. 20: 17. 

As to the other examples, the reader who will take the pains to compare Matt. 
28:1,7,8and Mark 16:1, 2,7, with Luke 23: 55,56. 24:1,9,10; and then 
the whole with John 20: 1, 2, will see that where a certain knowledge of the 
subject, a personal knowledge in regard to Matihew and John existed, yet there 
is a diversity in the mode of narration; John relating a fact in respect to one 
only of several concerned in it; while Matthew (as also Mark and Luke) re- 
lates the same fact as if several were concerned init. But does this necessarily 
imply want of knowledge, or contradiction? I trow not; andif not, then I may 
still believe that the references made in the text above, and in the first part of 
this note, are relevant to the point in question, which is, whether the number (ei- 
ther plural or singular) which is employed, determines of course the particulars of 
any occurrence that is related, or even the state of the writer's consciousness 
or knowledge in regard to those particulars. And the passages referred to shew 
thus much, viz. that where the principal thing merely in regard to any event, is 
the object aimed at by a narrator, he may employ the singular or the plural, just 
which best suits his mode of narration and conception ; while, at the same time, 
others may narrate in a different manner, having a specific object in view ; and all 
this, without any impeachment of the knowledge or veracity of either narrator. 

My apology for this long note, is the great importance of the subject, and not any 
desire of oppugning Prof. Bleek, whose moderation, ability, and critical acumen 
in general, I should be far from calling in question. But when that which 
would seem substantially to affect the credit of the Evangelists, is suggested, it 
is at least deserving of serious examination. 

If the reader has still any doubt on the principal question, whether the plural 
is employed in a general way of narration when a specific and particular narration 
would demand the singular, let him compare Mark 7:17 with Matt. 15: 15; 
Matt. 14:17 and Mark 6: 38, with John 6: 8,9; Matt. 96: 8 «πὰ Mark 14:4, 
with John 12: 4,5; Matt. 24: 1, with Mark 13:1; Matt. 27: 37, with John 19: 
19; Matt. 27: 48 and Mark 4: 36, with John19: 29. So in Luke 22 : 67, a ques- 
tion is ascribed to the multitude of the chief priests and scribes, which doubtless 
was put by one of them. In like manner the plural is used, where the nature of 
the case shews that the singular is meant, in John 11: 8. Luke 20: 21,39. 24:5 


4s § 10. was THE EPISTLE WRITTEN 


tians suffering martyrdom besides Stephen; nothing in Paul’s confession 
to the Saviour, which specifies the blood that he had shed. The conclu- 
sion seems to be, then, that only the blood of Stephen was shed on this 
occasion, although doubtless Paul then meant to add to the number of 
martyrs; he gave his vote for this purpose, Acts 26:10, and abused 
Christians in various ways, such as the spite and malice of Jews suggested. 
But they were not destroyed. It must be remembered, in regard to this 
persecution, that it was limited to Jerusalem; with the exception only, 
that Paul designed to extend it to Damascus, Acts 8: 12. 26: 10. 

Saul’s conversion, however, appears to have put an end to this perse- 
cution ; for we read, after his first visit to Jerusalem, that the churches 
in Judea, Galilee, and Samaria, were in a state of peace and prosperity, 
and were multiplied, Acts 9: 31. 

Persecution again broke out under Herod Agrippa, (about A. D. 44), 
who, to gain favour with the Jews, pretended great zeal for the law ; and 
to do them a pleasure, he undertook to harass Christians. How widely 
he extended his efforts to vex them, the sacred historian has not told us ; 
it is simply said, that he undertook κακῶσαΐ τινας τῶν ἀπὸ τῆς ἐκκλησίας, 
and that he put to death James the brother of John, and cast Peter into 
prison, Acts 12: 1,3. It is very probable, since Herod lived a part of his 
time at Cesarea, that he may have extended his vexations to the churches 
there, in order to increase his popularity in that city, which was the cap- 
ital of his kingdom. Be this as it may, we read of only one death on this 
occasion ; James he destroyed, ἀνεῖλε; but others, ἐχάκωσε. 

Herod died a short time after this, at Cesarea, smitten by a divine hand 
on account of his having impiously received praise as a God. With his 
death the persecution ceased; for the Roman procurators who followed, 
allowed of no open persecution. It was not until the departure of Festus, 
and before the arrival of his successor Albinus, (nineteen or twenty years 
after the persecution of Herod), that the Jews were again engaged in any 
open or violent outrages against Christians. James the younger, and 
some others with him, were then destroyed by Ananus the high priest. 
But this act of violence was disapproved by the considerate and sober 
part of the Jews; and Ananus himself was thrust out of office, by the in- 
terference of the succeeding Roman governor, on account of this act of 
cruelty, Josephus Antiq. XX. These are all the persecutions unto blood, 
in Palestine and before the destruction of Jerusalem, of which we have 
any historical information. The last of these probably occurred, after the 
epistle to the Hebrews was written. Vexation proceeding from personal 
insult, contumely, excommunications, malice and blind fiery zeal, on the 
part of the unbelieving Jews, no doubt, the Christians in Palestine suffer- 
ed very frequently, during the period before the destruction of Jerusalem. 
But restraint of personal liberty and destruction of property or of life, 
were not permitted by a Roman government, while the civil administra- 
tion of Judea was actually in their hands. 


(εἶπον). Matt. 15: 1,12. These instances are, indeed, more directly to the point 
of illustrating the plural form of expression in Acts 26:10, than those cited 
above ; and I am thankful for the remark of Prof. Bleek, which has occasioned 
me to seek for and to produce them. I trust the relevancy of these examples to 
the case in Acts 26: 10, will not be called in question. 


TO THE CHURCH IN PALESTINE ὃ 49 


Compare now these facts, (which I have not seen fully developed by 
any of the critics who have written on our epistle), with the passage 
which is at present under consideration. Our epistle is directed to Chris- 
tians as a body, and not to the teachers or officers of the churches; for 
these are separately spoken of, Heb. 13:7, 17, and a salutation is sent 
to them Heb. 13: 24, as not being a direct party to the epistle, but a sepa- 
rate class of persons. ‘The investigation which we have instituted shows 
that only teachers, and not private Christians, had suffered martyrdom in 
Judea. An epistle to private Christians in Palestine, then, and not ad- 
dressed to their teachers, might say, and might truly say, “ Ye have not 
yet resisted unto blood, striving against sin ;” although some of their 
teachers had suffered martyrdom. —_ , 

Eichhorn, denying that our epistle was written to a church in Palestine, 
asks, as though it were incapable of contradiction, “ Did not blood often 
flow at Jerusalem, and (since this was the metropolis of the country) in 
Palestine at large ?” And then he concludes it to be impossible, that our 
epistle should say to Hebrew Christians in Palestine, “ Ye have not re- 
sisted unto blood.” But had he minutely investigated the history of these 
persecutions, he might have spared his conclusion, and refrained from the 
assurance with which it is stated. If however we should admit all that 
is contended for, viz. that in the persecution of the time of Stephen, and 
under Herod Agrippa, many private Christians were destroyed; even 
then, the passage of the epistle which we are considering, offers no for- 
midable difficulty. Plainly the principles of interpretation demand no 
more, than that what is said, in the verse under consideration, should 
have respect to the generations of Christians then living, and the perse- 
cution then ‘pending when the epistle was written. One generation of 
Christians, who were adults, or in advanced life when they were convert- 
ed, (which might have been on or near the day of Pentecost), must have 
necessarily passed off the stage, in a period of about thirty years. But 
many of the generation now addressed may have been Christians, and 
probably were so, at the time when Herod persecuted the church ; which 
accords well with what our epistle says, “Remember former days, when, 
soon after your conversion, ye endured a great fight of afflictions,” 10 : 32 
—34. But after that, when Herod was dead, there was a remission of se- 
verities. Now again, the violence of the Jews had begun to shew itself; 
but the Roman government overawed it, so as to restrain it from shedding 
blood. Such a state of things agrees well with the language of our epis- 
tle. Ye have not, i. 6. in your present struggle, resisted unto blood. 'This 
expression has not necessarily any respect to preceding times of persecu- 
tion, but only to that which was then pending. In this way the laws of 
exegesis are satisfied. But if not, if the expression must be referred to 
past times, it is, as we have already seen, capable of historical vindication, 
when applied to the Hebrews. Private persons had not resisted unto blood. 

My apology for dwelling so long on this subject, is the interesting facts 
in the history of the church with which it is connected, and the hasty 
conclusions or imperfect investigations respecting it, which I have found in 
all the writers whom I have had opportunity to consult. Even Schroeckh, 
in his great work on Ecclesiastical History, has omitted any detail- 

Ζί 


59 $19. WAS THE EPISTLE WRITTEN 


ed account of the primitive persecutions, and has given us nothing which 
is adapted to satisfy a particular inquirer. 

Ors. 3. ‘Heb. 13: 24, They of Italy salute you. What did the church 
in Italy know of the church in Palestine, that they should send salutations 
to them ? Or if, as most critics have averred, they of Italy means Priscilla 
and Aquila, how should the church of Palestine know any thing of these 
private Jews, who had only travelled from Rome to Corinth, from Corinth 
to Ephesus, and thence back again to Rome ?” 

In regard to the first part of this objection, it is sufficient to ask, How 
could Peter send a salutation from the church at Babylon, 1 Peter ὃ: 19, 
to the churches in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia? 1 
Peter 1:1. How could Paul, writing to the Corinthians from Ephesus, 
say: The churches of Asia salute you2 1 Cor. 16:19. Was then the 
church at Babylon personally acquainted with all those churches in Asia, 
to whom their salutation is sent by Peter ? Or were the churches of Asia 
personally acquainted with the Corinthians? Neither the one, nor the 
other. Neither was necessary; for what is more common than saluta- 
tions, sent by a mutual friend, from some persons to others whom they 
have never seen ? 

But farther; had they of Italy never heard of the church in Palestine ? 
And might they not sympathize with them in their trials and dangers, and 
send them an affectionate expression of their regard in a salutation ? Such 
objections cannot surely help to support the cause, in aid of which they 
are adduced. 

As to Aquila and Priscilla, (if the οὗ ἀπὸ τὴς Τταλέας means them, which 
is very improbable), a sympathy in them, as Jews, for their Christian 
brethren in Palestine, is surely not a matter of wonder. And an expres- 
sion of this in a salutation, is as little so. 

Ors. 4. ‘The writer of the epistle to the Hebrews has in various places 
eulogized them for the charity which they had so cheerfully manifested, 
and continued to manifest, on various occasions, Heb. 6: 10; in particu- 
lar for their compassion towards those who were in bonds, i. e. imprison- 
ed, 10: 82, seq. He exhorts them also to continue their benefactions of 
this nature, by a liberal hospitality, Heb. 13: 1, 2,16. How could such 
things be addressed to the church in Palestine ; and how could they be 
praised for contributions to others, when they were so poor from the first, 
that they had even been assisted by the contributions of churches from 
abroad ?” 

But this argument fails of producing conviction, because it is built on 
an interpretation of the epistle which is not admissible, and on an assump- 
tion of facts altogether improbable and unsupported. The writer tells 
them, that God will not forget their labour of love, in that they have min- 
istered to the saints and do still minister, 6: 10; that they have had com- 
passion on those who were in bonds, 10: 34; that they must not forget to 
entertain strangers, 13: 2; and that God is well pleased with their sacrifi- 
ces of hospitality (κοινωνίας), 13: 16. Here is nothing said, or even inti- 
mated, of making contributions for churches abroad. They are com- 
mended for being liberal to the saints, who were in need or in prison ; 
and they are exhorted to continue their hospitality to strangers, i. e. to re- 


TO THE CHURCH IN PALESTINE ? δ] 
ceive with liberality and kindness brethren that were strangers from 
abroad (probably preachers), who visited them. Who can doubt that a 
characteristic so peculiarly exhibited by Christians in general of the prim- 
itive age, was manifested by the churches in Palestine; ἃ country which 
so many strangers visited ? 

But when it is said, that the church in Palestine was supported by con- 
tributions from abroad, why should this be predicated, as it is by many 
critics, of all the Christian churches in Palestine? There is no support 
for this opinion to be derived from history. When the famine occurred 
in the time of Claudius, Acts 11 : 27—80, a collection was made at Anti- 
och, and sent to Judea; which appears, however, to have been distribut- 
ed at Jerusalem, Acts 12:25. In respect to all the other collections 
mentioned in Paul’s epistles, Jerusalem is evidently the place for which - 
they are destined. See Rom. 15: 25—31. 1 Cor. 16: 1—3. 2 Cor. 
Vill. 1X. εἰς ἁγίους; comp. 1-Cor. 16: 1—3. Gal. 2: 1—10. If now we 
consider the circumstances of the church at Jerusalem, this will not ex- 
cite any surprise. For first, in this metropolis Jewish zeal was more dis- 
played than elsewhere, and Christians here were, of course, peculiarly 
exposed to persecution and want. Secondly, the multitude of Christian 
Jews, who still resorted to the temple in order to pay their services there, 
and who would naturally consort with the Christians at Jerusalem, ren- 
dered necessary the charity of the churches abroad in order that the 
Christians of the Jewish metropolis might support their hospitality. But 
as to other churches in Palestine, we know nothing of their poverty. We 
know that many Christians in that country had possessions, and sold them 
in order to put the avails into the public treasury of the church, soon af- 
ter the day of Pentecost, Acts 2: 44, 45. Indeed it is beyond all bounds 
of probability to suppose that, of the many thousand Jews in Palestine 
who had become Christians, all were poor and in need of foreign charity. 
Poverty of this nature was not very common among the Jews, who were 
always an active and industrious nation. Above all, the supposition that 
the Hebrew Christians were unable to perform the common rites of hos- 
pitality, and to aid in any way such as were thrown into prison, or to fur- 
nish them with aliment, is destitute of every degree of probability ; and 
therefore it can form no solid objection to the idea, that the epistle to the 
Hebrews was addressed to some church or churches in Palestine. Why 
is it necessary to suppose that the church at Jerusalem, and that exclusive- 
ly, was addressed ? 

Moreover, the very objection itself affords an argument for the position 
which it is designed to oppose. In what country were the prisoners to 
whom compassion had been shewn? Prisoners they were, evidently, on 
account of their Christian faith. We have seen that neither liberty nor 
life was, at this period, in jeopardy abroad on account of religion, because 
of the restraint over the Jews exercised by the Roman government. We 
have no history that proves such jeopardy to have been matter of fact. 
The mere temporary imprisonment of Paul and Silas, on charge of sedi- 
tion, and as preparatory to trial (Acts xvr), proves nothing to the purpose. 
Accounts of other imprisonments besides this, out of Palestine, cannot be 
shewn in the history of the primitive church, at least within the Roman 


52 §8. WAs THE EPISTLE WRITTEN 


provinces abroad. Palestine was the only place where Christians were 
imprisoned. Even when Paul went to Damascus, he expected to bring 
his prisoners to Jerusalem, Acts 9:2. Palestine then was the place, 
where compassion to Christian prisoners was needed, and where it was 
to be shewn; and there, as it seems to me, it was exhibited by those 
whom the epistle to the Hebrews addresses. 

Ops. 5. ‘Heb. 13: 23. “Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at 
liberty, ἀπολελυμένον, with whom, if he come soon, I will pay you a visit.” 
How could the church in Palestine know any thing of Timothy, who was 
never there ; and what particular coneern can they be supposed to have 
had with a visit of Timothy to them ? 

But, first, it is altogether probable that Timothy was with Paul at Jeru- 
salem, during his last visit there, before his imprisonment. It is certain 
from Acts 20: 4, that Timothy set out with him and several others, from 
Troas, to go to Jerusalem ; and equally certain, that although the history 
of Paul’s voyage to Palestine, at that time, is traced with a minuteness 
that is unusual, not a word is mentioned of Timothy’s being left behind, 
or being separated for any time from him; although it is the custom of 
Luke to mention such a faet, whenever it occurs; e. g. Acts 19: 22. 17: 
14. 20: 5, 19,14. Indeed it is altogether against probability, that Timothy 
would have separated from Paul on this occasion; for it was announced 
to Paul, on his way, that bonds and imprisonment awaited him at Jerusa- 
Jem, Acts 21:4. 20:23; not to mention the desire which Timothy, 
who had been educated as a Jewish proselyte, must have had to see Je- 
rusalem and the interesting objects which it presented. 

The sequel of this journey was, that Paul was kept two years as a pris- 
oner at Cesarea ; with full liberty of access, however, to all his friends 
and acquaintance. Is there any probability that Timothy, who was so 
ardently attached to Paul as to have followed him every where, from the 
very first of his acquaintance with him, would have immediately deserted 
him ; or even if he was then abroad, that he would not have come to aid 
his necessities? So far then as the objection is built on 'Timothy’s igno- 
rance of the Jews in Palestine, or theirs of him, it appears altogether im- 
probable. 

Besides, even supposing Timothy had not been personally there, did 
not the churches there know that he was a favourite companion and help- 
er of Paul? And was he not commended to the Jews, by the fact that 
after he became a Christian, he had submitted to the rite of circumcision 
on their account? If Paul wrote the epistle in question, or any other per- 
son immediately connected with Timothy, he might very naturally give 
the churches in Palestine, and especially the church at Cesarea, informa- 
tion that he was sent away (ἀπολελυμένον) or set at liberty, and that when 
he should return, he would pay them a visit in his company. 

Oss. 6. ‘But how could Paul pray to be restored to the churches in 
Palestine ? Hebrews 13: 19. He had just been sent to Rome as a prison- 
er, by the persecuting spirit of the Jews of Palestine ; how could he ex- 
pect or wish to return thither again ?” 

This objection is built on the supposition, that Paul was the author of 
our epistle. Conceding this point then, for the sake of argument, it may 


TO THE CHURCH IN PALESTINE 7 53 


be asked, in reply, If Paul had been at Rome, and was dismissed there by 
the emperor himself, on an appeal to him personally as judge in respect 
to the Jews, might not the apostle well expect that the Jews would in fu- 
ture be overawed, and not venture to attack him again on account of his 
religion? Besides, it was only at Jerusalem, that he was exposed to dan- 
gerous persecution. At Cesarea, he remained a kind of prisoner at large, 
without any tumult or excitement, for two whole years. Might he not 
desire to be restored to the brethren there, who had treated him ina 
friendly manner, and administered to his necessities while he was among 
them as a prisoner? Besides, Paul was not a man to be deterred from a 
desire to go, or from actually going, to any place where he thought it his 
duty to go, by any prospect of persecution or of sufferings ; as his history 
abundantly testifies. δ 

Oss. 7. ‘The Ebionites, a sect made up of Palestine Jews, appear to 
have known nothing of the epistle to the Hebrews. How could this be, 
if it had been directed to any of the churches in Palestine 3᾽ 

If Paul was the author of this epistle, then it is very easy to answer 
this objection ; for the Ebionites rejected all the epistles of Paul from their 
canon, (as Eusebius expressly testifies), because Paul every where appears 
in them, wherever occasion demands it, in opposition to a Judaizing spir- 
it. They, on the other hand, separated from other Christians, out of 
zeal for the rites of the Jewish law. Nay, the manner in which Eusebi- 
us mentions this fact, seems to imply that the Ebionites were acquainted 
with the epistle to the Hebrews, and rejected it, together with Paul’s ac- 
knowledged epistles ; for Eusebius reckoned this epistle to be certainly 
one of Paul’s: and he mentions the rejection of Paul’s epistles by these 
sectarians, in a manner which seems to imply, that the whole of these epis- 
tles, as reckoned by himself, were rejected by them.* 

To the same purpose Irenaeus testifies, Advers. Haeres. I. 26, “ Apos- 
tolum Paulum [Ebionitae] recusant, apostatam eum legis dicentes.” 

Moreover, if some other person, and not Paul, had been the author of 
the epistle to the Hebrews, the sentiments which it contains respecting the 
Jewish ritual, would have occasioned its rejection from the canon of the 
Ebionites. That they did not retain it, then, as part of their New Testa- 
ment Scriptures, is no argument against its having been directed to the 
church in Palestine, 

Ors. 8. ‘ But if the epistle to the Hebrews was directed to the church 
in Palestine, why was it not written in the dialect of that country, instead 
of the Greek language ? Is itnot improbable, that any writer would ad- 
dress in Greek, Jews who spoke the Hebrew language ?” 


* Eusebius (Hist. Eee. 11. 27) says, that the Ebionites rejected att Paul’s epis- 
tles, because they believed him to be an apostate from the law, οὗτοι δὲ τοῦ μὲν 
ἀποστόλου πάσας τὰς ἐπιστολὰς ἀρνητέας ἠγοῖντο εἶναι δεῖν, ἀποστάτην ἀποκαλ-- 
οὔντες αὐτὸν τοῦ νόμου. Now as in Lib. 11. 25 of the same author, the epistle 
to the Hebrews is implicitly reckoned as one of Paul’s epistles, and clearly as 
one of the books of Scripture which are ὁμολογούμενοε, (comp. Lib. 111. 25 and m1. 
3), it appears that Eusebius means to say, that the Ebionites rejected the epistle 
to the Hebrews; for he undoubtedly held this to be one of Paul’s. Of course, 
he supposes the Ebionites to have been acquainted with it, or to have had oppor- 
tunity of being acquainted with it. 


δ4 δ 10. was THE EPISTLE WRITTEN 


There are critics, both of ancient and modern times, who maintain that 
the original epistle was in Hebrew ; believing, as Jerome says, that the au- 
thor ut Hebraeus, Hebraeis Hebraice scripsit. But as Iam not persuaded 
of the correctness of this opinion, I will not advance it here, as a reply to 
the objection which we are now considering. 

It is well known, and abundantly evident from the writings of the New 
Testament, that the Greek language was generally understood more or 
less over all hither Asia. The conquests of Alexander and the govern- 
ments established by him, had made Greek the language of courts, of lit- 
erature, and of all well informed people. In the larger and more com- 
mercial towns, this knowledge extended in some measure to the common 
people, as well as to those of a more elevated rank.* 

The Greek votaries, who went up to Jerusalem every year to perform 
their religious services there, must have rendered the Greek language 
somewhat current in the metropolis. It was the language by which all 
the inhabitants of western Asia, when they met as strangers, held inter- 
tercourse with one another. If the epistle to the Hebrews, then, was 
written in Greek, and directed to the church at Jerusalem, it might have 
been understood by them. 

But if the epistle to the Hebrews was directed to Cesarea, there is still 
more reason to suppose it would have been easily understood there. In 
that city, there were a great multitude of Greeks, even a majority of its 
inhabitants, Joseph. Bell. Jud. ΠῚ. 14. p. 854. edit. Colon., πλέον wp λ- 
λήνων ἐποικουμένην. The Jews who lived there were, in general, men de- 
voted to commerce, or to concerns of a public nature, and must have 
well understood the Greek language. No serious difficulty, then, lies in 
the way of supposing that this epistle was sent to some part of Palestine, 
and that it was intelligible there, although written in the Greek language. 

On the other hand, is it not apparent that the author of our epistle de- 
signed it should be encyclical, so that Jews far and near might ultimately 
peruse it, in order that they might become weaned from their attachment 
to the Levitical rites, and substitute Christianity in the place of the Mosa- 
ic religion? Such a design would have been in some measure defeated 
by writing it in Hebrew ; for Greek was by far the most general language. 

Taking all these facts into view, that it was written in Greek does not 
appear to constitute any solid objection to its having been directed to some 
part of Palestine. 

Prof. Bleek, in his Review before cited, chooses to account for the 
epistle being written in Greek, by suggesting the probability, that ‘the 
writer was not acquainted with the Hebrew language as then spoken ;’ 
a supposition, he intimates, which is the more probable, inasmuch as the 
quotations from the Old Testament in the epistle to the Hebrews, shew 
that the writer was not acquainted with the Scriptural Hebrew. The 
manifestly frequent Hebraisms of the epistle, however, (see § 382), are 
against both of these suppositions. ὙΠῸ internal evidence, that the epis- 


* See this subject illustrated, in a very able and satisfactory manner, by Hug 
Finleit. in das N. Test. Theil II. § 10, a translation of which is given in the 
Biblical Repository, Vol. I. No. 3. 


TO THE CHURCH IN PALESTINE ? δᾶ 


tle comes from the hand of ‘a Hebrew, seems to be as convincing, on the 
whole, as it is in regard to the other New Testament books. I am aware 
how often the contrary has been asserted; but when has it been proved 2 
Γ have actually produced the Hebraisms of the epistles, and those who do 
but repeat over the assertion of Origen, that “the epistle is better Greek, 
(ξβλληνικωτέρα) than Paul’s,” are bound either to shew that these are not 
Hebraisms, or to concede that it was possible for Origen to make a mis- 
take in a matter of taste and style; in respect to either of which, I have 
yet to learn, that he can be accounted a skilful arbiter. 

Oss. 9. ‘ How could this epistle have been directed to Palestine, when the 
ground of argument in it, in several places, is furnished by the Septuagint 
version, and not by the Hebrew Scriptures ἢ How could Jews in Palestine 
be convinced, by an appeal of this nature ?” 

But who does not know, that the Palestine Jews of that day regarded 
the Septuagint version as being of divine authority? Josephus gives full 
credit to the account of Aristeas, respecting the miraculous manner in 
which this version was made ; as may be seen in his Antiq. XII. 2. edit. 
Colon. There could be no danger that the :Jews of Palestine would ob- 
ject to such an appeal, or to such a mode of argument. 


RESULT. 


I have now examined all the objections against the opinion that the 
epistle to the Hebrews was directed to Palestine, with which I have met, 
and which seem to be of sufficient magnitude to deserve attention. I am 
unable to perceive that they are very weighty ; and surely they come 
quite short of being conclusive. On the other hand, the positive proof, I 
acknowledge, is only of a circumstantial nature, and falls short of the 
weight which direct and unequivocal testimony in the epistle itself would 
possess. But uniting the whole of it together; considering the intimate 
knowledge of Jewish rites, the strong attachment to their ritual, and the 
special danger of defection from Christianity in consequence of it, which 
the whole texture of the epistle necessarily supposes; and combining 
these things with the other circumstances above discussed ; I cannot re- 
sist the impression, that the universal opinion of the ancient church re- 
specting the persons to whom our epistle was addressed, was well found- 
ed, being built upon early tradition and the contents of the epistle ; and 
that the doubts and difficulties thrown in the way, by modern and recent 
critics, are not of sufficient importance to justify us in relinquishing the 
belief, that Palestine Christians were addressed by the epistle to the He- 
brews. Thousands of facts, pertaining to criticism and to history, are be- 
lieved and treated as realities, which have less support than the opinion 
that has now been examined. 

There remains but one question more, relative to the original destina- 
tion of this epistle, concerning which inquiry is now to be made. 


56 § 11. was ir pirEcTED TO 


§ 11. Was it directed to aux the churches in Palestine, or only to onE? And 
if only to one, was this the church at Jerusalem, or at some other place 3 


This question cannot be answered, as is sufficiently evident from what 
has been already said, by adducing any direct testimony concerning it. 
Probability made out from circumstantial evidence, is all, at the most, 
which criticism can achieve. Perhaps it may fail even in respect to this. 

While engaged in the investigations necessary to complete the views 
above presented, it often occurred to me as possible, that the epistle to 
the Hebrews might have been originally directed to the church at Cesa- 
rea. Perhaps I may venture to say, that there are at least some specious 
grounds of probability, that this was the case. ‘The reasons of this opinion 
I will now briefly state. 

Cesarea (Καισάρεια παράλιος, Cesarea by the sea) was built by Herod 
the Great in a most splendid manner, and named by him in honour of the 
Roman emperor Augustus. Previously to this, it was an insignificant 
village called “Στράτωνος πύργος, the tower of Strato. Although it lay out 
of the district of Judea, (as anciently defined by the Jews), and within 
the borders of Phenicia, yet it was within the Roman procuratorship of 
Judea, and was the capital of the Roman prefects or procurators. Jo- 
sephus calls it “the greatest city of Judea,” and says, (as has been already 
mentioned), that the majority of the inhabitants were Greeks, Bell. Jud. II. 
14, p. 854. edit. Colon. 

Here Cornelius, the first convert to the Christian faith from the Gentiles, 
was stationed. On the occasion of his conversion a church was gathered 
here, and the miraculous gifts of the Spirit imparted to it, Acts 10 : 44—48. 
This was the earliest church that was gathered out of the ancient limits of 
Judea. 

Paul had repeated opportunities for acquaintance with Christians here. 
After his first journey to Jerusalem, he returned to Tarsus through Cesa- 
rea, Acts 9:30. After preaching at Corinth, and on going to revisit the 
churches in Asia, Paul landed here, Acts 18:22. On his fourth visit to 
Palestine, he lodged here at the house of Philip the Evangelist, one of the 
seven deacons named in Acts vi. Here he abode many days, ἡμέρας 
σιλείους, Acts 21: 8—10. Here, at the time just mentioned, when Agabus 
had_ predicted that in case Paul went to Jerusalem he would be bound as 
a culprit there and delivered up to the heathen tribunals, the men of the 
place (οὗ ἐντόπιοι). as well as his own travelling companions, besought 
him with tears and strong entreaties to refrain from going thither, Acts 
21: 12, 13. 

When, after this, he had been up to Jerusalem, and was sent away un- 
der a guard of Roman soldiers, he was brought again to Cesarea. There 
he remained two whole years, a kind of prisoner at large, none of his 
friends being forbidden to approach or assist him, Acts 24: 23, 27. 

At Cesarea dwelt a rich and powerful body of Jews. In the time of 
Felix, these Cesarean Jews, boasting of their riches and of Herod as the 
founder of the city, treated with contempt the Syrian part of the popula- 
tion. This raised a tumult, and at last occasioned mutual assaults, in 
which the Syrians were worsted. Felix was obliged to check the over- 


“THE CHURCHES IN PALESTINE IN GENERAL ἢ 57 


ire ~ —— ——— 


bearing power of the Jewish party, by commissioning the Roman sol- 
diery to kill and plunder them, Antiq. Jud, XX. 6. p. 695, edit. Colon. 

It appears also, that the Jews here were strong zealots for the temple 
worship. Herod Agrippa, while king of Judea, very probably in order to 
ingratiate himself with the rich men of this his capital, as well as with 
those of Jerusalem, pretended a very strong zeal for Judaism. ‘This he 
exhibited by cansing James the brother of John to be slain with the 
sword, by imprisoning Peter, and by vexing others of the church, Acts 
12: 1seq. Now considering that Cesarea was his capital, and that to 
ingratiate himself with the Jews there, who were rich and powerful, 
would be a great object for a prince so wholly devoted as he was to the 
interests of ambition ; is it probable that his vexations of the church were 
limited to Jerusalem ? 

Let us now put all these facts together, and compare them with the 

contents of our epistle, on the supposition that Paul wrote it. From the 
epistle to the Hebrews it no where appears, that the writer was the first 
teacher of the church whom he addresses; but the contrary is plainly 
implied. Now history tells us, that Peter planted the church at Cesarea, 
and not Paul, Acts x. The teachers of the church addressed in the epis- 
tle to the Hebrews, are applauded without any exception as to their doc- 
trine or behaviour; and so this might well be, for the first teachers at 
Cesarea were apostles and primitive evangelists. Philip the evangelist 
was stationed there, when Paul made his last visit to Jerusalem, Acts 
21:8 566. ; and this Philip had four daughters who were prophetesses, 
i. e. teachers of the Christian religion. Does not this shew a flourishing 
state of the church there? The persons to whom the epistle to the He- 
brews is addressed, had often bestowed charity to relieve the necessities 
of Christians, and particularly of those who were imprisoned, Heb. 10: 
34, 6:10. How aptly this fits the circumstances of Paul among the 
- Cesareans, it is easy to perceive. He was a prisoner among them for 
the space of two years. Well might he say, “Ye had compassion τοῖς 
δεσμοῖς μου, on my bonds,” as the common text reads; or (which comes 
after all to the same thing) τοῖς δεσμίοις, on the imprisoned. It was Paul’s 
gratitude for this, which probably led him to speak of it repeatedly ; and 
so it stands in the epistle to the Hebrews. The eulogy which the writer 
of that epistle bestows on those whom he addresses, certainly becomes 
very significant, on supposition that it was written by Paul under such 
circumstances. : 

The Hebrews addressed in our epistle had been early made converts 
to Christianity, 5:12. 10:32. The church at Cesarea was the first 
gathered out of the ancient limits of Judea. Its first converts, indeed, 
were Gentile proselytes, Acts x.; but it cannot with any probability be 
supposed, flourishing as it was when’ Paul paid his last visit to it before 
his imprisonment (Acts 21:8 seq.), that there were no Jews who belong- 
ed to it; for Cesarea contained (as we have seen) a large number of He- 
brew residents. Herod Agrippa persecuted the church in A. D. 44, 
which was some twenty years before the epistle to the Hebrews was writ- 
ten; and Cesarea was Herod’s capitol. May not the Christians in it 
have suffered at that time? The Hebrews mentioned in our epistle, had 

8 


58 § 11. WAS IT DIRECTED TO THE 


lost their property in some early persecution, and had been imprisoned, 
10: 32 seq.; and the persecuting Herod who had the power of life and 
death, had also the power of confiscation and imprisonment; for he was 
made a sovereign by the Roman emperor.. Under him the church at 
Cesarea may have experienced, and very probably did experience, such 
vexations. Certainly the church at Jerusalem experienced them at this 
time, Acts 12: 1 seq. i 

The epistle to the Hebrews presents images drawn from the Grecian 
games and public shows, 10: 32. 12: 1seq. At Cesarea, Herod the 
Great had instituted all the Grecian games, and built a splendid theatre ; 
so that such aJlusions would be very forcible and pertinent, if addressed 
to those who lived there. 'The writer of our epistle mentions Timothy to 
the church whom he addresses, as his special friend, and one in whom 
they would feel a deep interest ; and as ‘Timothy, it cannot well be doubt- 
ed, was at Cesarea with Paul more or less of the time that he was a pris- 
oner there for two years, the church at that place must have been well 
acquainted with him. Paul requests their prayers, that he himself may 
be restored to them, 13: 19; and the frequent visits which he had made 
the Cesareans, the strong attachment they had manifested to him, and the 
long residence he had made among them, correspond well with a re- 
quest so plainly founded in their affectionate regard for him, and in his 
for them. 

Again; Cesarea was only two days’ journey. from Jerusalem, and the 
Jews there were zealots for the traditions of their fathers. Resistance 
to the Roman power, which finally brought on the destruction of the 
Jewish commonwealth, first began here, from the wounded spirit of Jew- 
ish pride and national feeling. These facts render it probable, that the 
Jews there had a full and intimate acquaintance with all the Mosaic ritual; 
and that the Christian Jews must, from the power, wealth, and overbear- 
ing spirit of the others, have been hard pressed, (by persecution on the 
one hand, and the imposing pomp of the temple service on the other), to 
make defection from the Christian religion. Finally, as the majority of 
the inhabitants here were Greeks, and of course the current language in 
this splendid capital was Greek, this may account for it, that our epistle 
was written in Greek instead of the Palestine dialect. From this place 
it could not fail to be circulated abroad; as there must have been comers 
and goers to and from this place, from all parts of Palestine. For Paul 
to subscribe his name to the epistle was not necessary, in case he sent it 
by a friend, as doubtless he must have done ; and besides this, the cireum- 
stances mentioned in it, of being restored to them, and of coming to them 
with Timothy, would be sufficient of themselves to disclose the author to 
the Cesarean Christians. And designed, as the letter in all probability 
was, to be a circular among the Jews, they who were abroad, reading it 
without the name of the author, would not so readily have those preju- 
dices awakened, which had lately shewn themselves to be very violent 
among the Jews who were zealous for the honor of the Mosaic law, 
whenever Paul had made his appearance among them. 

I grant, at once, that all this is supposition. But in the absence of all 
positive testimony, if a supposition can be presented, which contains 


CHURCHES OF PALESTINE IN GENERAL? 59 


nothing improbable in itself, and explains a variety of characteristic pas- 
sages in our epistle, and accords well with the facts which history has 
recorded, may it not be regarded, at least, as presenting a probability, un- 
til the fallacy of it be exposed, or a more probable one be advanced ? 

The points of coincidence just recited, forced themselves upon me un- 
sought and unexpected, in the course of my investigation. They are not 
offered from the love of novelty, nor with any overweening confidence as 
to the approbation which others may give them. 

But while I thus present what may be said in favour of Cesarea, as 
the place to which our epistle was directed ; I must not endeavour to 
conceal from my readers, that there are serious difficulties in the way of 
the supposition in question. As I have no favourite theory to support, in 
respect to this matter, I shall suggest them fully, and without hesitation. 

One objection to the view here given seems to be, that the church at 
Cesarea, in the time of Origen and Eusebius, (both of whom lived there) , 
do not appear to have retained a tradition that our epistle was directed to 
them. At least, neither of these fathers, so fur as I know, make mention 
of such a tradition; which they probably might have done, had it existed 
in their times. Still, if our epistle was designed to be a circular, and for 
that reason, a direction to any particular church was omitted in it, the 
Cesarean church, if they were the first who received it, might not have 
considered it appropriately theirs, in the same manner as the Corinthians, 
Galatians, and others, did the letters addressed to them. 

Another objection to the idea that our epistle was directed to the church 
at Cesarea, may be drawn from the probability, that the church there 
must have consisted in part of Gentiles ; especially as Greeks constituted 
a majority of the population of that city. What was really fact, however, 
in regard to this, at the time when the epistle was written, we have no 
historical means of ascertaining. It is certainly a very possible case, that, 
at the time when the epistle to the Hebrews was written, the church at 
Cesarea might have been principally made up of Jews; or at least have 
contained a majority of members, who were Hebrews. Or there may 
have been more than one church at Cesarea, (a thing not improbable) ; 
and the Jews there, who were such uncommon zealots for the law, might 
have established a religious community of their own, separate from that 
of the Gentile Christians, whom the former would regard with an eye of 
jealousy, if not of distrust. But independently of all this, one may easily 
suppose, that if the author of our epistle designed it for the good of the 
Hebrews in general, he would have written just in the manner which he 
has adopted, whether the church whom he addressed contained: some 
Gentiles or not. 

It is another circumstance, moreover, which seems to make against the 
supposition in question, that our epistle takes no notice of any relation of 
the Jews to the Gentiles, in the church of Christ ; and does not enter into 
a discussion of matters usually disputed between Jewish and Gentile 
Christians. And to this we must add, that the liberal spirit of the Cesa- 
rean Christians towards Pauli while a prisoner there, and at other times, 
renders it somewhat difficult to suppose that they had become such zeal- 
ous Judaizers, as our epistle seems to imply that those were to whom it is 
addressed. 


69 § 12. ANTIQUITY AND CANONICAL 


Upon the whole it is a plain case, that confident and positive assertions 
in favour of the point in question, cannot be made with propriety. The 
most which I would say here is, that some reasons apparently specious, 
seem to offer themselves in favour of the supposition, that our epistle was 
originally sent to the church at Cesarea. At the same time, other con- 
siderations seem to make against this view of the subject. 

Nothing certain, then, can be determined, as to the particular place. 
To the churches in general in Palestine, the epistle could not have been 
first sent, inasmuch as it has so many local and personal implications in it. 
To Jerusalem it may have been directed. Such was the opinion of the 
ancients in general, and this is the opinion which Bleek has recently de- 
fended. Difficulties may be raised against this; especially if Paul be 
considered as the author of our epistle. Yet none of them are invinci- 
ble. It might well be questioned, also, whether a church at Jerusalem, 
the metropolis of all proselytes as well as Jews, would be as likely to be 
purely Jewish, as one in some other part ef Palestine; see Acts 7: 1. 
After all, then, we must perhaps leave the epistle, as the writer has left it, 
without a particular address ; and content ourselves with saying, ‘We do 
not know.’ A salutary lesson for critics to learn, now and then, and one 
which they would do well to learn oftener than they yet have done. 


§ 12. Antiquity and canonical authority of the epistie. 


Its antiquity may be established by evidence internal and external. 
The allusions made to the temple service in the epistle itself, necessarily 
imply that this service was then performed when the letter was written ; 
6. g. Heb. 9: 9, “ Which [former tabernacle with its services] was a signi- 
ficant emblem in respect to the present time ; in which gifis and sacrifices 
are offered, that cannot render tranquil the conscience of him who per- 
forms this service.” Again, in chap. 8: 4, 5, the writer says, “For if he 
[Jesus] had performed his service on earth, then he could not bea priest ; 
seeing there are priesis, who, according to the prescription of the law, per- 
Jorm their service im a tabernacle which is merely a copy of the heavenly 
one.” Both of these passages clearly imply that the temple rites were 
then performed, at the time when the writer composed our epistle. 

Now as the whole temple service ceased with the destruction of Jeru- 
salem in A. D. 70, it is clear that our epistle must have been written be- 
fore that period; and consequently it belongs to the apostolic age. 

Another argument also in proof of this is, that the particular views 
which the epistle throughout gives of temptation to apostasy, are evident- 
ly grounded on the then existing rites of the Jewish temple-worship. 
The state of feeling among the Jews at large, (which resulted from strong 
attachment to these rites, and the zeal with which their views of these 
things were maintained), and their extreme jealousy of every thing which 
had a tendency to diminish the supposed importance of their ritual, to- 
gether with ‘the imposing splendour and magnificence of the Levitical 
ceremonies, as then practised, all concurred to tempt those Hebrews who 
had embraced Christianity, and renounced the common views of their 


AUTHORITY OF THE EPISTLE. 61 


countrymen, to relapse into their former views and habits. ‘The shape in 
which this whole subject presents itself in the epistle to. the Hebrews, 
manifestly implies that the Levitical institutions were then in full vigour. 
Of course, the age in which this was the case must have been the apos- 
tolic one, 

It is equally plain, that our epistle was written in the latter part of the 
apostolic age. Those whom it addresses are represented as having been 
Christians long enough to be qualified, bad they been properly attentive 
to their duty in learning the principles of Christianity, to become teachers 
of it, 5:12. The former days, when they were first enlightened, are 
spoken of by the writer, 10 : 32, in distinction from the time then current. 
They are addressed also as having witnessed the death of their first 
teachers, 13: 7; and their then present teachers are commended to their 
affectionate regard, 13:17. All these circumstances imply that some 
time must have passed away since the gospel was first preached among 
them, and they had been converted to Christianity. In other words, the 
epistle must been written in the latter part of the apostolic age. ‘The 
specific year I shall not here endeavour to ascertain, as it will hereafter 
be a subject of inquiry. 

With the internal marks of antiquity exhibited by the epistle itself, cor- 
responds the external testimony that can be gathered respecting it. Cle- 
ment of Rome is the most important witness that can be adduced, in re- 
gard to the point before us. His epistle to the Corinthians, (commonly 
named his first epistle*), is the most considerable, certainly the most im- 
portant and best authenticated, relic of ecclesiastical antiquity which be- 
longs to the first century of the Christian era. According to the general 
voice of the ancients, the author of this epistle is the Clement whom Paul 
mentions as one of his fellow labourers, and as having his name written 
in the book of life, Philip. 4: 3. He was the third bishop of Rome, ac- 
cording to Irenaeus (contra Haeres. Iff. 3), Eusebius (Hist. Ecc. 111. 13. 
15. 21. 34. 38), and Jerome (Viri Hlust., Clemens). . In the name of the 
church at Rome, and as their bishop, he addressed an epistle to the church 
at Corinth. This epistle, as all agree, must have been written within the 
first century ; probably about A. D. 96, Several critics of high reputation 
are disposed to assign to ita much earlier date. For example, Pearson, 
Pagi, Dodwell, Wake, and Le Clerc, date it at a period antecedent to the 
destruction of Jerusalem, i. 6. before A. D. 70. If their opinion be cor- 


* It is called first, because there is a second which bears his name, and which 
has usually been printed in connection with the first. The first was so greatly 
esteemed by the churches in the early ages, that it was read publicly to Christian 
assemblies. in Jike manner as the books of the New Testament. Itis very often 
cited, with great encomiums, by nearly all the Christian fathers. It has been as- 
sailed, indeed, by a few critics in modern times ; and what relic of antiquity has 
not? It doubtless, like most ancient books, has suffered somewhat in regard to 
the purity of its text, by frequent transcription and by negligence. But, on the 
whole, it is a venerable and a precious relic of the primitive age of Christianity ; 
and it is very generally adinitted to be such.—The second epistle is quoted by 
none of the early fathers; and it differs in style and method so much from the 


Jirst, that there can scarcely be a doubt of its spuriousness. Vide Clem. Rom. 
edit. Wotton. p. cevi. 


62 § 12. ANTIQUITY AND CANONICAL 


rect, the testimony of Clement’s epistle will be still stronger in proof of 
the antiquity and authority of our epistle to the Hebrews; for this testi- 
mony, in such a case, must have been given within some eight or ten. 
years after our epistle was written, and during the apostolic age. But be 
this as it may, I am willing to assume the latest date, which can with any 
shew of probability be assigned to Clement’s epistle, viz. A. D. 96; for 
this will be only about thirty years after the epistle to the Hebrews was 
most probably written. 

It will be seen in the sequel, that the testimony of Clement will serve 
to cast light upon the two points of inquiry which constitute the object 
of the present section, viz. the antiquity and the canonical authority of 
our epistle. 

I shall first exhibit the evidence that Clement has quoted this epistle, 
and then subjoin some remarks on his testimony. I enter into the exam- 
ination of this matter the more formally and fully, because of the impor- 
tant bearing which the testimony of a writer so early and respectable as 
Clement, must evidently have upon the authority of our epistle, and indi- 
rectly upon its origin; and also because the subject has been (at least so 
it seems to me) imperfectly treated, and passed over with a slight exam- 
ination, by nearly all the eritics aioe I have had an opportunity to con- 
sult. 

It is a singular circumstance, that no book of the New Testament should 
have been so frequently quoted by Clement as the epistle to the Hebrews. 
That such is the fact any one may satisfy himself, who will take the pains 
to examine his quotations as referred to in Wotton’s edition of this author, 
or the detail of them as exhibited by Lardner, Credibil. of Gosp. Hist. I. 
p: 49 seq. 

The quotations made by Clement from the epistle to the Hebrews may 
be arranged under four different classes ; viz, 


I. 


Passages in which the exact words, or nearly so, of the epistle are quoted. 


CLEMENT. 


No. 1. 

Cap. 36, Ὃς ὧν ἀπαύγασμα τῆς 
μεγαλοσύνης αὐτοῦ, τοσούτῳ μείζων 
ἐστὶν ay γέλων ¢ ὅσῳ διαφορώτερον ὦ Ov- 
ομα κεκληρογόμηκε. 


HEBREWS. 


No. 1. 


1:3 Ὃς ὧν ἀπαύγασμα τὴς δόξης 
ae Τοσούτῳ κρείττων 
γενόμενος τῶν ἀγγέλων ὕσῳ διαφο- 
θώτερον παρ᾽ αὐτοὺς κεχληρονόμηχεν 
ὄνομα. 

» ’ c ~ A > ' 

7. Asys’ Ο ποιῶν τους ἀγγέλους 

Ὁ A ‘ 
OUTS πνεύματα, καὶ TOUS λειτουργοὺς 


ε ~ 
re ἔγραπται γὰρ οὕτως" O ποιῶν 
τοὺς ἀγγέλους aus rivet wore, καὶ 


αὑτοῦ πυρὸς φλόγα. 

5. Τίνι γὰρ εἰπὲ ποτε τῶν ἀγγέ- 
λων" Υἱός μου εἶ σὺ, ἐγὼ σήμερον 
γεγέννηκά σδ; 

13. Πρὸς τίνα δὲ τῶν ἀγγέλων 
εἰρηκὲ mots) Κύϑου ἐκ δεξιῶν μου, 
ἕως ἂν Io τοὺς ἐχϑρούς σου ὑποπό- 
διον τῶν ποδῶν σου; 


τοὺς λειτουργοὺς αὑτοῦ πυρὸς φλόγα. 

"Ent δὲ τῷ υἱῷ αὐτοῦ, οὕτως εἶπτεν 
ὃ δεσπότης" υἱός μου εἰ σὺ, ἐγὼ σήμε- 
gov γεγέννηκά Of..., καὶ πάλιν λέγει 
πρὸς αὐτόν: Κάϑου ἐκ δεξιῶν μου, 
ἕως ἂν ϑῶ tore ἐχϑρούς σου ὑποπόδι-- 
ον τῶν ποδῶν σου. 


AUTHORITY OF THE EPISTLE. 


HEBREWS. 


No. 2. 


Heb. 6: 18..... ἐν οἷς ἀδύνατον 
ψεύσασϑαι ϑεόν. 


No. 3. 
Heb. 11: 37......aegujldov ἔν 
μηλωταῖς, ἐν αἰγείοις δέρμασι. 
Νο. 4. 


Heb. 10: 87. Ἔτι γὰρ μικρὸν ὅσον 
ὅσον, ὃ ἐρχόμενος ἥξευ καὶ οὐ χρονιεῖ. 


63 


CLEMENT. 


No. 2. 
Cap. 27..... οὐδὲν yao ἀδύνατον 
παρὰ τῷ ϑεῷ, εἰ, μὴ τὸ ψεύσασϑαι. 
Νο. 8. 


Cap. 17. οἵτινες ἐν δέρμασιν αἱγεί-- 
οις καὶ μηλωταῖς περιεπάτησαν. 


Νο. 4. 


Cap. QO es wie! συνεπιμαρτυρούσης 
καὶ τῆς γραφῆς" ὅτι ταχὺ ἥξει καὶ οὐ 
χθονιεῖ. 


ΤΠ. 


Passages containing the same sentiment, with more or less contraction of the expression, or an 
exchange of the original word for a synonymous one. 


No. 5. 


Heb, 4: 12..... καὶ κριτικὸς ἐν-- 
ϑυμήσεων καὶ ἐννοιῶν καρδίας. 


« 


No. 6. 


Heb. 11: 5. Πίστει Ἐνὼχ usteté on, 
τοῦ μὴ ἰδεῖν ϑάνατον. 


7. Πίστει χρηματισϑεὶς Noe. 


> ‘ c 
8. Πίστεν καλούμενος ᾿Αβραὰμ ὑπ-- 
ήκουσεν ἐξελϑεῖν εἰς τὸν τόπον, %. τ. d. 


31. Πίστει Ῥαὰβ ἡ πόρνη ov συν-- 


ἀπώλετο toig ἀπειϑήσασι, δεξαμένη 


τοὺς κατασχύπους μετ εἰρήγης. 


Νο. ὅ 


Cap. 21. .... οὐδὲν λέληϑεν αὐτὸν 
τῶν ἐγνοιῶν ἡμῶν, οἱ δὲ τῶν διαλογισ-- 
μῶν ὧν ποιούμεϑα. 

(Again, near the end) εν νον ἔρευ-- 
γητὴς γάρ ἐστιν ἐννοιῶν καὶ ἐνϑυ- 
μήσεων. 


No. 6. 


Cap. 9..... Ἐνὼχ, og ἐν ὑπακοῇ 
δίκαιος εὑρεϑεὶς μετετέθη, καὶ οὐχ 
εὑρέϑη αὐτοῦ ϑάνατος. 


.... Woe πιστός εὑρεϑ εὶς stale 


Cap. 10. ABoacu ἐν νον πιστὸς εὖ-- 
ρέϑη ἐν τῷ αὐτὸν ὑπήκοον γενέσϑαιν 
τοῖς ῥήμασιν τοῦ Θεοῦ, οὗτος δὶ ὕπα-- 
κοὴς ἐξῆλϑεν ἐκ τὴς γῆς, κ. τ. A. 


Cap. 12. Διὰ πίστιν καὶ φιλοξε-- 
view ἐσώϑη ἹῬαὰβ ἢ πόρνη. 


§ 12. ANTIQUITY AND CANONICAL 


1Π. 


Passages which are a paraphrastic imitation of the epistle to the Hebrews ; or in which the style 
or phraseology of this epistle is more or less exhibited. 


HEBREWS. 


No. 7. 

Heb. 11: 86—39. “Ἕτεροι δὲ éux- 
αιγμῶν καὶ μαστίγων πεῖραν ἔλαβον, 
ξτι δὲ δεσμῶν καὶ φυλακῆς. ᾿Ελιϑάσ-- 
ϑησαν, ἔπρίσϑησαν, ἐπειράσϑησαν, ἐν 
φόνῳ μαχαΐρας ἀπέθανον... καὶ οὗ-- 
τοι πάντες μαρτυρηϑέντες διὰ τῆς 

᾿ 
πίστεως. 


No. 8. 


Heb. 12: 1, 2. . ++. τοσοῦτον ἔχον-- 
τὲς περικείμενον. ἡμῖν νέφος μαρτύρων 
Suen OL ὑπομενῆς τρέχωμεν τὸν προ-- 
κείμενον jy ay ave: “ἀφορῶντες εἰς 
τὸν τῆς πίστεως ἀρχηγόν, % τ. A. 


Νο. 9. 


Heb. 12: 5—11. (comp. Prov. 3: 

11, 12.) ..... υἱέ μου, μὴ odliyaoe 
’ τσ. ul a) ey 4 L tive) 2 

σεαιδείας Κυρίου, μηδὲ ἐχλύου vm αὖ-- 

te) ΄ a 1 3 Ἐπ ΣΝ 
τῷ ἐλεγχόμενος. “Ον γὰρ ἀγαπᾷ Κύ: 
ριος, παιδεύει, μαστιγοῖ δὲ πάντα 
υἱὸν ὃν παραδέχεται... . Οἱ μὲν... 
κατὰ τὸ δοχοῦν αὐτοῖς ἐπαίδευον [ἢ-- 

TN 1 ᾿ 

μᾶς], 0 δὲ [ϑεὸς] ἐπὶ τὸ συμφέρον, 
εἰς τό μεταλαβεῖν τῆς ἁγιότητος αὖ-- 
τοῦ. 


Νο. 10. 
Heb. 4: 14 seq. Ἔχοντες οὖν ἀρ- 


χιερέα μέγαν seis INGOUY ... οὐ" Ἐγ- 
ομὲν ἀρχιερέα μη δυνάμεν, ον συμπα- 
ϑῆσαι ταῖς αἰσϑενείαις ἡ ἡμῶν . + στροσ-- 
ἐρχώμεϑα. ++ WO... χάριν εὕρωμεν 


εἰς εὔκαιρον βοήϑειαν. 


= 


CLEMENT. 
No. 7. 

Cap. ale Ἐγκύπτετε εἰς τὰς γρα- 
φὰς τὰς ἀληϑεῖς ῥήσεις σινεύματος 
τοῦ ἁγίου στα οὐ geo εὑρήσεται 
δικαίους ἀποβεβλημένους ἀπὸ ὑσίων 
ἀνδρῶν»). ᾿Εδιώχϑησαν δίκαιοι, ἀλλ᾽ 
ὑπὸ ἀνόμων" ἐνεφυλακίσϑησαν, ἀλλ 
ὑπὸ ἀνοσίων" ἐλιϑάσϑησαν ὑπὸ παρ-- 
ονόμωγ" pee che ὑπὸ TOY μι- 
αρὼν καὶ ἄδικον ζῆλον ἀνειληφότων. 
Tuite πάσχοντες εὐκλαιῶς ἤνεγκαν. 


Νο. 8. 

Cap. 19. [olay οὖν χαὶ μεγάλων 
καὶ ἐνδόξων μετειληφότες παραδειγ-- 
μάτων (Wotton, πράξαιων) & ἐπαναδρά- 
teensy ἐπὶ τὸν ἐξ ἀρχῆς παραδεδομέ- 
γον ἡμῖν τῆς εἰρήνης σχόπον καὶ OTE 
γίσωμεν εἰς τὸν πτατέρα; %. 1. }. 


Νο.9 


Cap. 56. ᾿ἀναλάβωμεν παιδείαν 
ἐφ᾽ i οὐδεὶς ὁ ὀφείλει ἀγανακτεῖν... 
ὃν γὰρ ἀγαπᾷ Κύριος παιδεύει, μασ-- 
Tuy Ot δὲ πάντα υἱὸν ὃν παραδέχεται 
es γὰρ ἀγαϑὸς ὧν παιδεύει ὃ ϑεὸς, 
εἰς τὸ γουϑετηϑῆναι ἡμᾶς διὰ τῆς 
ὁσίας παιδείας αὐτοῦ, 


Νο. 10. 


Cap. 36. .... Τησοῦν Χριστὸν τὸν 
ἀρχιερέα τῶν προσφορῶν ἡμῶν, τὸν 
προστάτην καὶ βοηϑὸν τὴς ἀσϑενείας 
ἡμῶν. Cap. 58.... διὰ τοῦ ἀρχιερέ-- 
ὡς καὶ προστάτου ἡμῶν I. Χριστοῦ... 


AUTHORITY OF THE EPISTLE. 65 


ΨΥ: 


Passages similar to texts in the Old Testament, but which Clement probably quoted from the 
epistle to the Hebrews. 


HEBREWS. CLEMENT. 


No. 11. No. 11. 
Heb. 3:2. “μιστὸν ὄντα τῷ ποι-- Cap. 17. Mioijs πιστὸς ἐν ὅλῳ 


ἥσαντι αὐτὸν, ὡς καὶ Motors ἐν ὅλῳ τῷ οἴκῳ αὐτοῦ ἐκλήϑη. 
τῷ οἴκῳ αὐτοῦ. 

5. Καὶ Moots μὲν πιστὸς ἐν odd Cap. 49. Ὅ μακάριος πιστὸς ε- 
τῷ οἴκῳ αὐτοῦ, ὡς ϑεράπων. ράπων ἐν ὅλῳ τῷ οἴκῳ Moons. 


I shall now subjoin a few remarks on the preceding view. 

No. 1. Some parts of the passage here extracted from Clement, may 
be found in the Old 'Testament as well as in the epistle to the Hebrews; 
but other parts of it are appropriate only to the latter. This fact, as well 
as the application itself: to Christ of the passages taken from the Old 
Testament, shows beyond any reasonable doubt, that Clement must have 
had the first chapter of the epistle to the Hebrews distinctly in his mind, 
when he wrote the passage which is presented in the comparison. 

That Clement, in his epistle, has added more of the second psalm (v. 8) 
than is found in the epistle to the Hebrews, forms no argument that he 
quoted the phrase, Thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee, directly 
from the second psalm, rather than from Heb.1. In his view, clearly, 
the whole of the second psalm applied to the Messiah. ‘To the quotation 
made from Ps. 2: 17 by the writer of the epistle to the Hebrews, Clement 
adds another verse (v. 8), in, order to amplify and confirm the view of the 
subject which he had introduced. 

To this statement we may the more readily accede, since it is often the 
manner of Clement, in making his quotations of Scripture, to intermingle 
passages taken fo different parts of the Bible, without any notice, or 
any sign of transition from the one to the other.* 

No. 2. That Clement does not introduce this passage with the formula 
of a quotation, is no proof that it is not one; for he often extracts passa- 
ges, both from the Old and the New Testament, without using any for- 
mula of quotation, or without any intimation that he is about to quote. 
The singularity of the expression itself exhibited in No. 2, and the fact 
that it is peculiar to the epistle to the Hebrews, are the grounds on which 
I should rest the probability, that Clement had in his mind distinetly the 
manner of expression in our epistle, when he wrote the sentence present- 
ed in the comparison. 

No. 3. This is so plainly and exactly a quotation of an expression sut 
generis in the epistle to the Hebrews, that to doubt whether it be in real- 
ity copied from this epistle, would be*to doubt whether Clement has 


* E.g. Clement (Epist. c. 50), after quoting from Is. 26: 20, adds. another 
quotation (from what book it is uncertain) without any note of transition. So 
in cap. 53, after quoting Deut. 9:12 seq., he goes on to quote other passages 


from different places, without any notice of transition. And so frequently, in 


his epistle, where he arranges together various quotations. 


»-ὕ 


J 


66 § 12. ANTIQUITY AND CANONICAL 


quoted in any case, except where he has given express notice of it. But 
a doubt of this nature can never be cherished by any one who has read 
Clement’s epistle, and examined the method of his quotations. 

No. 4 appears to me a case of quotation from Heb. 10: 37, which has 
the formula of appeal to the Scriptures prefixed, συνεπιμαρτυρούσης τῆς 
γραφῆς. ‘The passage quoted is found, in the sense in which it is used 
by Clement, in the epistle to the Hebrews. _ Another passage from which 
we might suppose the quotation to be taken, viz. Mal. 3: 1, is quoted at 
length, in immediate connection with the one exhibited in the table, plain- 
ly because Clement deemed it to be a parallel one; so that we cannot 
choose the passage in Malachi, as the source of his quotation. There re- 
mains then, besides Heb. 10-: 37, only Hab. 2: 3, which affords any spe- 
cial resemblance to the quotation of Clement. But the passage in Ha- 
bakkuk relates wholly to a vision or prophecy, and not to a person as in 
Heb. 10: 37; and toa person Clement evidently applies it. Moreover the 
reading χρονιεῖ, which Clement exhibits, (and this without variation, if 
Walton may be trusted), agrees with the form of the words in Heb. 
10 : 37, but not with the form in Hab. 2: 3, which is χρονίσῃ. The prob- 
ability is then altogether in favour of the supposition, that the passage is 
quoted from the epistle to the Hebrews. 

No. 5 is so alike in Clement and in our epistle, I can hardly persuade 
myself that the expression in the latter was not in Clement’s mind, when 
he wrote the passages here extracted from him. Still, it does not appear 
to be a case, I readily concede, on which a conclusion respecting actual 
quotation or imitation can be built with entire certainty. 

No. 6, although it does not exhibit an exact use of the language in our 
epistle, contains, in my view, one of the most convincing proofs of quota- 
tion. The arrangement of these examples together, as in the epistle to 
the Hebrews ; the manner of characterizing their actions or their rewards, 
viz. that they flowed from faith; and the almost exact similarity of ideas, 
in cases where these are peculiar to the writer of our epistle, all combine 
to prove (I had almost said) the certainty that Clement had Heb. x1. be- 
fore his eyes, or at least before the eye of his mind. In what other part 
of Scripture are these examples so arranged together ? And where else 
is found such a method of presenting them to our view? In fact, imita- 
tion thus exact of a passage so peculiar in its style and manner, is better 
proof that the passage was before the eye of Clement, or at least in his 
mind, than exact coincidence of language in some such cases would be. 
In a short passage, such coincidence might be accidental, arising merely 
from similarity of views or of idiom. But accidental coincidence as to the 
mode of reasoning and representation here, seems to be fairly out of the 
question. 

No. 7 seems pretty evidently to be a kind of parody upon the corres- 
ponding passage in the epistle to the Hebrews, or a paraphrastic imitation 
of it. On the manner in which this is introduced, [ sball make further 
remarks in the sequel, 

No. 8. In Clement’s epistle, the passage is in the sequel of the sentence 
extracted in No. 3. Now as the writer of the epistle to the Hebrews has 
exhibited the same order of thought, Heb. 11: 37 and 12: 1, 2, is it not 


AUTHORITY OF THE EPISTLE. 67 


probable that Clement had the corresponding passages of that epistle in 
his mind, when he wrote the one presented by the comparison? The 
similarity of costume in the two passages, can hardly fail to strike the at- 
tentive reader. 

No. 9 may at first seem somewhat doubtful, because it is possible that 
it comes from the passage in Prov. 3: 11,12. But on nearer examina- 
tion, we find in Prov. 3: 12, ἐλέγχει, while in Clement and in Heb. 12: 6, 
the reading is παιδεύει... The strain of reasoning upon the passage shews 
pretty clearly, that Clement had in mind the corresponding passage in the 
epistle to the Hebrews ; for the close of the quotation from him, is evi- 
dently an expression of the sentiment in Heb. 19 : 10, 2 

No. 10 exhibits an appellation of the Saviour (ἀρχιερέα), which is pecu- 
liar to our epistle. There is, moreover, an evident similarity between 
Christ as δυνάμενον συμπαϑῆσαι ταῖς ἀσϑενείαις ἡμῶν, Hebrews 4: 15, and 
Clement’s προστάτην καὶ βοηϑὸν τῆς ἀσϑενείας ἡμῶν. 

No. 11 cannot, of course, be much relied on in the present case ; as no 
decisive reason can be offered, to prove that Clement must have quoted 
from our epistle. He may have quoted from Num. 12:7. From the 
tenor of the passage and the context, however, I am inclined to believe 
that he did quote from Heb. 3: 2 or Heb. 3:5; but Ε cannot attach much 
weight to this supposition. 

In order nowto make a fair estimate of the comparison which has been 
made, and the weight of evidence to be adduced from it, it is necessary 
that we should have correct views of the manner of Clement’s quotations 
in general, and the principles on which they are grounded. 

I have examined the whole of this writer’s quotations, both from the 
Old and New Testament, with a view to ascertain whether any thing can 
be determined as to the authority which he attaches to them, from the 
manner in which they are made; and also to ascertain, by a view of the 
whole, what his particular manner of quotation is. The result of this 
examination I will now briefly state. cl 

(1) Clement names no book of either Testament. He appeals, indeed, \ 
to the words of the prophets ; but their names he evidently uses to indi- | 
cate their persons, and not (as we do) the titles of their books. The im- 
portance of this fact, considered in connection with the same usage by the 
writers of the New Testament, in respect to a critical examination of the 
genuineness of the titles prefixed to the books of Scripture, has been al- 
ready adverted to in a preceding part of this introduction, § 10. 

(2) Clement habitually appeals to the books of either Testament, with 
or without any formula to give notice of a citation. He often prefixes 
γέγφαπται, λέχει, εἶπεν ὃ ϑεός, φήσιν ὃ λόγος ἅγιος, and the like formulas to his 
quotations. But nearly as often, particularly in the New Testament, he 
cites without any notice or formula at all; evidently taking it for granted 
that his readers will at once recognize the quotation, without any pains on 
his part to designate it. 

(3) I find no satisfactory evidence of quotation from the Apocrypha, or 
any apocryphal writer now known. ‘The instances of quotation from the 
Wisdom of Solomon (chap. 12. 27), alleged by Wotton, are plainly too far 
fetched to appear probable ; and the reference to the book of Judith (c. 


68 § 12. ANTIQUITY AND CANONICAL 


55 of Clement), is only a reference to the story concerning her, which 
Clement evidently believed. There are, it is true,a few cases of apparent 
quotation, either from books not found in our present Scriptures, or from 
traditionary accounts ; just as there are some quotations of this nature in 
the New Testament, which are not found in the Hebrew Scriptures. But 
there is no satisfactory evidence, that Clement received any of the known — 
apocryphal writings, either of the Old Testament or the New, as canonical. 

With these facts in view I cannot well account for it, that Eichhorn in 
his introduction to our epistle should say, when speaking of the weight of 
Clement’s testimony in respect to the canonical authority of it: ‘“ Clement 
indeed acknowledged the existence of the epistle, because he has borrow- 
ed whole passages from it. But still, he no where cites it formally; as 
is the case, When he makes use of the other canonical writings of the 
New Testament. How much then can be educed fron him, in respect 
to the eredit to be attached to this epistle ? Would he not have formally 
cited it, and named Paul as the author of it, if he had regarded it as ca- 
nonical, and as coming from Paul?” (Kinl. § 271.) From this he con- 
cludes, that we can merely prove the existence of it in Clement’s day ; 
but nothing in respect to the credit which he attached to it. 

But, as we have already seen, Clement is just as far from formally cit- 
ing the other books of Scripture, as he is from formally citing our epistle. 
Often as he has quoted Paul’s epistles, he never once appeals to his name, 
except in connection with the mention of the first epistle to the Corinthi- 
ans, where he could not well avoid it. With this exception, he has not 
even once named a single book of the New Testament, copiously as he 
has every where drawn from it. 

Allowing then that Clement has not formally cited the epistle to the 
Hebrews, it amounts to no proof that he has not used it as Seripture. 
But we are not obliged to allow so much. In No. 1. above cited, from 
Heb. 1: 7, it appears that Clement has prefaced his quotation with γέγραπ- 
ται γὰρ οὕτως ; Which is one of the highest appeals that he makes to the 
volume of inspiration. This very passage, too, is produced by Eichhorn 
as an example of Clement’s quoting from our epistle ; but the γέγραπται 
γάρ is wholly overlooked. 

Bleek, in his Review before cited p. 10, has undertaken to shew that 
no satisfactory proof can be elicited from Clement’s citations of our epis- 
tle, that he believed it to be authentic or canonical ; and he expresses his 
wonder, that I should appeal to the instance in question as being one 
which offers any evidence of this. He says, that ‘if Clement had not 
meant to appeal to the original Psalm (Ps. 2: 7) by γέγραπται γὰρ οὕτως, 
he would have inserted this at the beginning of his quotation from Heb. 1. ; 
(for in the context immediately. preceding, Heb. 1: 3, 4 is in part cited by 
Clement).’? But in this remark, the whole structure of the passage in 
Clement is obviously overlooked. This writer had been recounting the 
blessings which Christ procures for men; to which he adds, “ By him 
the Lord willed that we should taste of immortal knowledge (τῆς ἀϑανά- 
του γνώσεως); who is the brightness (splendour, radiance, ἀπαύγασμα) of 
his majesty, being so much superior to the angels, as he hath inherited a 
more excellent name [than they], Heb. 1: 3,4.” He thenadds, ‘ Γέγραπ- 


AUTHORITY OF THE EPISTLE. 69 


ται γὰρ οὕτως, for it is written, Thou art my Son, this day ete.” Now the 
phrase for it is written, stands here just where the purpose of the writer 
demands that it should be inserted, viz. just where appeal to decisive au- 
thority was directly resorted to by Clement. This writer had just affirm- 
ed that Christ was superior to the angels, quoting the words of Heb. 1:4, 
in order to express this sentiment. How then is this to be confirmed ? 
would of course be the natural question in the mind of Clement, and of 
his readers. The answer is, by an appeal to the application of Ps. 2: 7, 
to the Messiah, which is made by the writer of the epistle to the Hebrews. 
Now the application in question is made in the very next verse (i. e. in 
Heb. 1: 5) after the one which Clement had just quoted, viz. Heb. 1: 4. 
The very nature of the case shews, that the appeal must be, in Clement’s 
mind, to the authoritative application of Ps. 2: 7 to the Messiah, in order 
to establish the assertion which he had just made, viz. that Christ was 
superior to the angels. For if Ps. 2: 7 didnot apply to Christ, then quot- 
ing it would be nothing at all to Clement’s purpose. How then does 
Clement decide for himself, and how does he expect his readers will be 
satisfied, that it does apply to Christ? Why plainly from the fact, that 
Heb. 1: 5 applies it to him. What then is this but an appeal to authort- 
ty2 And how can the force of γέγραπται γὰρ οὕτως fall any where else, 
except on Heb. 1:5? It must be very plain, indeed, that the formula 
of the words is not all which is appealed to here by Clement; most evi- 
dently it is the application of them, the authoritative application of them 
which was to satisfy the minds of his readers, that is the principal point 
in question. But surely it will not be contended, that this application is 
found any where else by Clement, in this case, except in Heb. 1 : 5. 

That Clement, after citing the passage in Heb. 1: 5 which comes from 
Ps. 2: 7, should add Ps. 2: 8, is perfectly natural. The words of Heb. 
1: 5 he well knew were taken from Ps. 2:7; of course when he cited 
these words in Heb. 1: 5, the association of ideas would instantly carry 
back his mind to Ps. 2:7 and the sequel; which sequel he here very 
naturally adds, inasmuch as it was to his purpose in proving the superior- 
ity of Christ to the angels, which he had before averred. But then, after 
all, the application of all this to the Messiah, and of course its relevancy 
to the point in question and its authority, depend entirely on the use 
made of it by the writer of the epistle to the Hebrews. ‘To this use 
Clement appeals, plainly deeming it sufficient in his own mind, and ex- 
pecting it to satisfy his readers. If Prof. Bleek will review the nature of 
this whole appeal, and the certainty that the mind of the writer in the 
whole passage, (even as he himself acknowledges), is upon Heb. 1., and 
that the appeal is to this, he may perhaps find little reason to “ wonder” at 
the use which I have made of the passage and the appeal in question. 
The nature of the appeal is plainly such as to afford an unanswerable 
proof, that Clement appeals to the authority of our epistle in order to 
make out his proof. 

There is another instance also in Clement (c. 23), where the quotation 
from Heb. 10: 37 is quite probable, and which is prefaced by συνεπιμαρ- 
τυρούσης τῆς γραφῆς; supra no. 4. In respect to this, Bleek alleges that 
I have very imperfectly cited the passage from Clement. Accordingly, he 


70 § 12. ANTIQUITY AND CANONICAL 


has supplied my alleged deficiency ; 3 which is καὶ ἐξαίφνης ἥξει ὃ Κύριος 
εἰς τὸν ναὸν αὐτοῦ, καὶ ὃ ὅγιος [Β. ἅγιος only] ἃ ὃν ὑμεῖς προσδοχᾶτε. Now 
as this last supplement to my quotation is a passage from Mal. 3:1, and 
has no parallel in the epistle to the Hebrews; and as the one which I 
have quoted, is from Heb. 10: 37 (see remarks on No. 4 above), or from 
Hab. 2: 3, and has a parallel in our epistle ; and as my only object was 
to quote passages where parallels are found; I am altogether at a loss, to 
know how my quotation is very imperfect. 

The argument from this passage Bleek meets with the assertion, that 
it is “a free and contracted citation out of Hab. 2:3 and Mal. 3: 1.” 
But what has Mal. 3:1 to do with the citation in question? Surely 
nothing. ‘Then as to the “freeness and contraction” of the citation, it is 
verbatim and literatim the same as Heb, 10: 37; and the same as in Hab. 
2:3, with the exception, that there we find χρονίση, but in Clement 

χρονιεῖ, as it is in Heb. 10: 37; an argument too, this last circumstance, 
that Clement quoted from our epistle.. 

Now how is it to be made so certain as Bleek affirms it to be, that 
Clement quotes Hab. 2: 3, and not Heb. 10: 37 2 The external proof, as 
to the form of words, is clearly in favour of the latter; as all must admit. 
And this is all the evidence that can be had; for the context in this case 
gives uS no certain clue. Is a categorical assertion, then, to decide the 
point in question ; or are we to be guided by what evidence we have ? 

So long as there can be no doubt how these sleet just put are to 
be ἀπε Prof. Bleek will excuse me, if I abide, for the present and 
until some new evidence comes to light, by my former opinion. I have 
stated, that an appeal to the authority of Heb. 10: 37 is probably made 
here, by συγνεπιμαρτυρούσης τῆς γραφῆς ; is it shewn not to be so ὃ 

In regard, moreover, to the instances in No. 6, it will not be question- 
ed, that the writer had in his mind the passages in Heb. x1. which refer 
to the persons named, inasmuch as there is either a plain quotation from 
the peculiar diction of these, or a palpable imitation of the turn of senti- 
ment in them. But who that reads Clement, chap. rx.—xu., can refrain 
from the feeling, that he refers to these examples thus cited, in the same 
manner that he does to any part of the Old Testament Scriptures, 1. e. as 
binding and authoritative ὃ 

If No. 7 be regarded, also, as a paraphrastic imitation by Clement of 
the corresponding passage in the epistle to the Hebrews, then is this a 
third direct appeal to the divine authority of our epistle ; for he introduces 
the passage by saying, “ Search in the Scriptures the true sayings of the 
Holy Spirit.” 

Thus much for the allegation of Eichhorn, that Clement has no where 
cited our epistle formally, as he does the canonical Scriptures. But 
further ; the conclusion which this writer draws from the assumed facts 
stated by him, is as erroneous as the facts themselves. One might in- 
deed have expected, in a matter so weighty as that of Clement’s testimony, 
and one in which the evidence is so accessible, that so manifest an error 
in regard to Clement’s mode of quotation should not be committed. 
Nothing can be more evident to a critical reader of Clement, than that no 
conclusion can be drawn from the mode of his quotation, against the sup- 


AUTHORITY OF THE EPISTLE. 71 


position that he believed the book quoted to be canonical. The fact that 
he appeals to our epistle more frequently than to any other part of the 
New Testament; that he no where appeals (so far as we can discover) to 
any apocryphal writings of either Testament; above all, that he appeals 

istle by quo ting passages from it in order to pena m and impress _ 
_the truths which he is inculcating, and appeats-toitim the same way and — 
for the same purposes as he appeals to the most aknowledged parts of 
Scripture ; the fact too, that Clement was the companion and fellow la- 
borer of Paul, and was also bishop of the church at Rome, the metropolis 
of the world ; that he wrote in the name of the church there to the church 
at Corinth,* and that he addressed to them passages from the epistle to 
the Hebrews, in such a way as necessarily to imply that this epistle was 
already well known and familiar to them; these facts, taken all together, 
make on my own mind a strong impression, that the evidence is as clear 
and convincing, that in the age of Clement our epistle was considered a 
part of the sacred writings of the Scripture, as it is that any other book 
of the New Testament was considered as a part of them, 

Bleek (Review p. 10) himself acknowledges, that no evidence can be 
adduced from the manner in which Clement cites our epistle, that he re- 
garded it as of an authority which was inferior to that of other books of 
the New Testament. But he avers (p. 9), that we are not able to deter- 
mine, from the manner in which Clement cites the New Testament, 
what credit it then had in the church. This, he says, can be determined 
only when citations are made xeat’ ἐξοχήν. But are they not made so? 
E. g. chap. x1. of Clement, “ Remember the words of the Lord Jesus,” etc., 
then citing Luke 6: 86—38; chap. xxiu. “ Far be this Scripture from us, 
where he saith,” etc., quoting James 1:8 and 2 Pet. 3:4; chap. xxxrv. 
“ For he saiih,” etc., quoting 1 Cor. 2: 9, (not Is. 64: 4, where the order 
and diction of the passage are both different); chap. xx. “ Remember the 
words of the Lord Jesus,” etc., quoting Luke 17: 1,2. Is there any room 
for doubt or dispute here, whether Clement viewed these passages as ca- 
nonical or authoritative ὃ Certainly none. 

If then Clement has, as Bleek allows, given no more reason to call in 
question the authority which he πο to the epistle to the Hebrews, 
than that which he attached to any other book of the New Testament ; 
and if he has cited other books zat’ ἐξοχήν, (which is certain); then how 
is it so very plain that 1 have erred in my estimate of the credit in which 
our epistle stood with Clement,’ as Bleek supposes? I have examined 
more than once, every quoiation of Clement, from the Old Testament and 
from the New; and [ venture to say, that no sober critic will be able to 
make out any difference in the modes of quotation, which can go fairly 
to shew that Clement has quoted them in a different way, or entertained 
different views of their authority. If so, then why should it be called in 
question, that Clement appealed to the New Testament writings as au- 
thoritative, 1. 6. inspired? In the examples given above, is not this cer- 
tain? If you say, that in quoting from Luke, Clement has spoken of the 


Soa. ὁ“ Seuhnabe τοῦ ϑεοῦ ἡ παροικοῖσα “Ῥώμην, τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ x. τ. ἢ. is ‘he 


commencement of Clement’s epistle. 


72 § 12. ANTIQUITY AND CANONICAL 

words of the Lord Jesus, and not of the authority of Luke; my reply is, 
that he cites the words of the Lord Jesus from Luke, and by so doing, 
affords evidence entirely satisfactory, that he believed the narration of 
Luke to be drue and authentic? And is not a book of Scripture canonical, 
which is true and authentic ? 

Indeed I do not see how one can read, with an unprejudiced mind, the 
appeals which Clement makes to the epistle to the Hebrews, (more fre- 
quent appeals than he makes to any other book of the New Testament), 
without feeling that he regards the contents of this epistle as of an author- 
itative nature, in his own mind ; and that he expects they will be so regard- 
ed by his readers. In fact the tone and manner of Clement’s epistle 
throughout is such, as to afford evidence that the epistle to the Hebrews 
was a kind of model for him, which he has striven to imitate. It is not 
without ground, that Walton, the most critical and able editor of Clement, 
says, “Hane [epistolam] praecipue prae aliis sibi imitandam proposuit 
sanctus Pater [Clemens]; quod constat ex plurimis aliis locis, magnaque 
ex parte ex materia ac serie hujus epistolae, sicut prius observatum fuit ;” 
Note on p. 83. Can all this be so, and yet Clement not regard this epis- 
tle as canonical? Τ am unable to perceive any degree of probability in 
such a supposition. 

Bleek finally suggests, that if the epistle to the Hebrews was regarded 
as canonical at Rome in the time of Clement, it would be difficult to 
comprehend how it could have lost its credit at this place so soon in af- 
ter times, as it is well known that it did. 

The suggestion is not new; and the answer to it is, that this case is 
not so strange or unique, as the objection might lead one to suppose. 
The Apocalypse was in general, (I believe one may safely say) in univer- 
sal credit, among all the oriental churches, until about the middle of the 
third century ; and not long after this, it was pretty generally doubted or 
rejected by them. If it be said, this was occasioned by the Millenarian 
dispute ; it may be said with the same kind of probability, that the dis- 
credit into which the epistle to the Hebrews fell, for a time, at Rome, was 
occasioned 1ed_by t the dispute with the Montanists. But of this, more here- 
after, igen 

Let us see, now, what was the impression which in ancient times Eu- 
sebius had, from reading Clement’s epistle. Speaking of Monuments 
preser ving aposealie doctri rines, he says, καὶ [ἐτιστολῇ) τοῦ Κλήμεντος ἐν τῇ 

Eoomehaponueyn παρὰ πάσιν, ἣν ἐκ προσωπου τὴς “Ρωμαίων ἐχχλησίας τῇ 
Kogu diay διετυπώσατο᾽ ἐν ἢ τῆς πρὸς EBguious πολλὰ γοήματα παραϑεὶς, 
ἤδη δὲ καὶ αὕτολεξ εὶ ῥητοῖς 1 τισὶν ἐξ αὐτῆς χρησάμενος, σαφέστατα παρίστησίν 
ὅτι μὴ γνεὸν ὑπάρχει τὸ σύγγραμμα: ὅϑεν εἰκότως ἔδοξεν, αὐτὸ τοῖς λοιποῖς 
ἐγκαταλεχϑῆναι γράμμασι τοῦ ἀποστόλου : that is, “ [We count also the epis- 
tle] of Clement, acknowledged by all, which he wrote in behalf of the 
church at Rome to the clureh at Corinth ; in which, exhibiting many of 
the sentiments of the epistle to the Hebrews, he makes use of some ex- 
pressions taken from it in the very words of the epistle, by which he most 
clearly shews that this epistle is no recent composition ; whence it seems 
likely, that it is to be reckoned among the other writings of the apostle 
[ Paul].” Hist. Ecc. {Π. 38. I am not able to see how one who reads 


AUTHORITY OF THE EPISTLE. τῷ 


eritically the epistle of Clement, can avoid the conviction that he has 
quoted it as Eusebius avers, and that he has appealed to it as Scripture. 


Of other writers, belonging to the first half century after the apostolic 
age, we have but few remains ; and most of these are imperfect. Some 
near resemblances to passages in our epistle to the Hebrews may be found 
in them; but after a careful examination of them, I have not thought 
them sufficiently definite and important to become the subject of discus- 
sion here ; I shall merely subjoin them, and leave them to the considera- 


tion of the reader. 


The following are the passages usually compared. 


Heb. 3: 5. Movors μὲν πιστὸς ἐν 
ὅλῳ τῷ οἴκῳ αὑτοῦ ὡς ϑεράπων ΠΤ 
6. Χριστὸς. δὲ ὡς υἱὸς ἐπὶ τὸν οἶκον 
αὐτοῦ, οὗ οἶκός ἐσμεν ἡμεῖς. 

Heb. 10: 25. vey ἐγκαταλεΐποντες 
τὴν ἐπισυναγωχὴν ἑαυτῶν καϑὼς ἔϑος 
τισίν. 


Heb. 1 217. ..... μετανοίας yo 
τόπον οὐκ εὖρε. 

Heb. 4:12. .... κριτικὸς ἐγθυμή-- 
σεων καὶ ἐννοιῶν καρδίας ss es OU 
ἔστι χτίσις ἀφανὴς ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ. 

Heb. 6: 20. ᾿Ιησοῦς..... ἀρχιερεὺς 
γενόμενος, comp. 7: 3, 24. 4: 14. 


Heb. 13:9. Ζιδαχαὶς ποικίλαις 
καὶ Γξέναις μὴ megupsosods ..... ἐν 
οἷς οὐκ ὠφελήϑησαν οἱ περιπατήσαν-- 
τες. 

Heb. 10: 28, 29. ᾿4“ϑετήσας tis 
γύμον Μωῦσέως χωρὶς οἰκτιρμῶν ἐπὶ 
δυοὶν 2) τρισὶ μάρτυσιν ἀποϑνήσκει' 
Πόσῳ δοκεῖτε χείρονος. ἀξιωθϑήσεται 
τιμωρίας, ὃ τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ϑεοῦ κατα- 
πατήσας, κα. 1. de 


Barnabas, Fpist. c. 14. Muaivoijs, 
ϑεράπων oy, ἔλαβεν [viz. τὰς πλά- 
κας]. αὐτὸς δὲ ὃ κύριος ἡμῖν ἔδωκεν, 
εἰς λάον κληρονομίας, κ. τ. i. 

Barnabas, Epist. c. 4. Non sepa- 
ratim debetis seducere vos, tanquain 
justificati. 

{Old Latin version ; 
being lost.] 


Hermas, Simil. VIII. 8. His igi- 
tur non est locus penitentiae. 

Poly carp, Epist. CA ae ,"λέληϑεν 
αὐτὸν οὐδὲν, οὔτε λογισμῶν. οὔτε ἔννοι- 

, οὔτε τι τῶν χρυπτῶν τῆς καρδίας. 

“ Polyearp, Marty Tes xn LO τοῦ 
αἰωνίου ἀρχιερέως ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ; 
(quoted in Euseb. Hist. Ecce. p, 199, 
1). ; so, also, in the Latin version of 
Polycarp, published by Usher). Add, 
from the same version, C. XII. ..... 
et ipse sempiternus pontifex, Dei 
filius, Christus Jesus. Lardner, IT. 
830. 

Tenatius, Epist. ad Magnesios, ce. 8. 
My πλάνασϑε ταῖς ἑτεροδοξίαις, μηδὲ 
μυϑεύμασιν τοῖς παλαιοῖς ἀνωφελέσιν 
οὖσιν. 

Ignatius, Epist. ad Ephes. c. 16. 
Εἰ δὲ οἵ τοὺς ἀνϑρωπίνους οἴχους 
διαφϑείφοντες, ϑανάτῳ καταδικάζον- 
ται πύσῳ μᾶλλον οἵ τὴν Χριστοῦ ἐκχ-- 
un: ησίαν γοϑεύειν ἐπιχειροῦντες αἰωνέ-- 
αν τίσουσι δίκην, ὑπὲ 50 ης σταυρὸν καὶ 
ϑάνατον ὑπέμεινεν ὃ ᾿Κύριος ᾿Ιησοῦς, 
teat, λ. 


the original Greek here 


The passages may be found in Cotelerius; or in Lardner, Cred. I. pp. 


49, 44. 131. 


217. I. 830. I. 177. edit. 1734. 


See also Eich. Einleit. § 271, 


note 2. Several of them, (specially one from Polycarp naming Christ 


74 § 12. ANTIQUITY AND CANONICAL 


the eternal high priest), look very much like a quotation. But in a matter 
so weighty, it is not best to place very much dependence on them, as the 
similarity may be accidental. 

Justin Martyr is the first considerable writer of the second century 
whese works are come down to us. He was born about A. D. 103, and 
flourished about A. D. 140. In his dialogue with Trypbo the Jew the 
fo! lowing passage occurs: “This is he, who, after the order of Melchize- 
dek, is king of Salem and eter nal priest of the Most High,” p. 341. He 
elsewhere ene Christ, αἰώνιον tot ϑεοῦ ἱερέα καὶ βασιλέα, καὶ: :Χριστὸν 
μέλλοντα γίνεσϑαι, p. 323, ©. In another place he says of Christ ; Kot 
ἄγγελος δὲ καλεῖται καὶ ἀπόστολος, Apolog. I. p. 95. D. ; which name (ἀπόσ- 
todos) is given him only in the epistle to the Hebrews. 

Bleck admits that these passages “seem like quotations.” Truly they 
do. And are they not made in the same way as Justin quotes other pas- 
sages of the New Testament, and for the like purposes? In Palestine, 
then, as well as at Rome, we find evidence of the early credit of our epis- 
tle, and indubitable proof of its existence. 

In addition to the facts already stated respecting the early existence 
and credit of the epistle to the Hebrews, it should be noted, that the 
Peshito or old Syriac version of the New Testament, made (in all proba- 
bility) during the second century; and the old Latin versions made dur- 
ing the same pericd, and probably within the first half of it; both contain 
the epistle to the Hebrews, Bertholdt Einleit. p. 637 seq., 717 seq. This 
is a fact of very great importance; for these versions were in common 
use and authority, among the churches ef the East and the West. It is 
not pretended, so far as J know, that either of these versions, at this period, 
comprised any book which is now known to be apocryphal. Undoubt- 
edly they did not comprise any, which were then deemed apocryphal. 

Bleck suggests (Review p. 20), that ‘it is not yet made out, how old 
the Latin versions above mentioned were; nor whether our epistle, if 
in them, was considered a part of the canon; nor, in fact, whether it 
was at all comprised in them.’ it is indeed true, that no circumstantial 
critical history of the early Latin versions is extant among the Fathers; 
for where is an example of such a history of any book among them ?, But 
it is true also, that Augustine speaks of them as made primis fidei tempor- 
ibus, De Doctrina Christ. If. 11. Tertullian speaks of a Latin translation 
as being in use, (in usum exiit); De Monogam. li. Advers. Prax. 5. Ad- 
vers. Marcion. 11.9. v. 4. Sometime then before the close of the second 
century, such a translation must have been made. And can there be any 
good reason to doubt, that it was the earliest of all the translations of the 
New Testament, when we take into consideration the need there was of 
such a version in the Roman empire, particularly in Italy and proconsular 
Africa? How can it be accounted for, too, that neither Augustine nor 
Jerome, who speak so often and so much of the old Latin versions, should 
never once mention that the epistle to the Hebrews was omitted in them ? 
Could Jerome have failed to mention this, on the occasion of his newly 
translating this epistle ? 

The silence of these fathers on this subject, where they had so much 
and so direct occasion to mention it, is good ground, at least, for suppos- 


AUTHORITY OF THE EPISTLE. 75 


ing that they knew nothing of the epistle to the Hebrews being omitted 
in the old Latin versions. That there were a considerable number of 
these, is evident from the manner in which they are mentioned by Je- 
rome (epist.ad Damasum), and by Augustine (De Doctr. Christ. 1. 11). 
Yet in respect to none of them, have we any hint that our epistle was 
omitted; a thing absolutely unaccountable, on the supposition that it was 
not included; and especially so, when we consider how frequently Je- 
rome and Augustine have hinted at the division of opinion in the Latin 
churches about the epistle to the Hebrews, and how decided they were 
in favour of its Pauline origin and of its authenticity. 

I cannot help thinking, then, that facts such as these do sufficiently 
“make out,” that the old Latin versions included our epistle. And that 
they would not have included it, had it not been considered a part of the 
canon, by the churches where these versions were made, seems to be too 
evident to need any confirmation. 

Here then is strong evidence, that the epistle to the Hebrews was wide- 
ly circulated among Christians, a short time after the apostolic age. In 
the west, the /tala and old Latin versions in all probability comprised it ; 
in Greece or the middle region, the church at Corinth are addressed by 
Clement as being familiar with it; and in the east, the Syrian church, 
wide spread as it was, comprised it in their canon. 

From near the close of the second century onward, the history of the 
canonical credit of our epistle intermingles itself with the controverted 
question, whether Paul was the author of it. On this account, I shall not 
pursue separately the history any farther, at present, as it must necessari- 
ly be investigated, in the course of discussing the important question, 
which still remains for consideration. 

The sum of what has been shewn under our present head of discus- 
sion, is, that the epistle to the Hebrews was written before the destruction 
of Jerusalem, probably but a short time before this event; that in about 
thirty years, at most, it had acquired such currency and credit, that the 
ehurch at Rome, the metropolis of the world, in a letter addressed by 
their bishop to the church at Corinth, made repeated appeals to it as a 
book of divine authority, and in such a way as to imply a knowledge and 
acknowledgment of it by the Corinthian church, similar to their own ; 
that Justin Martyr, about A. D. 140, has evidently appealed to its contents 
as sacred; that about this time, or not long after, it was inserted among 
the canonical books of the New Testament, by the churches of the East 
and the West; and that, consequently, it must have had, at a period very 
little after the apostolic age, a currency and a credit not at all, or at most 
very little, inferior to that of other acknowledged books of the New Tes- 
tament. Better evidence than this of early and general reception by the 
churches, it would be difficult to find, in respect to a considerable number 
of books in the New Testament; with less than this we are obliged to 
content ourselves, respecting several of them. 

Bleek (Comm. p. 436 seq.) gives a very different view of this subject. 
He represents it as uncertain whether the old Syriac version admitted the 
epistle to the Hebrews because it was believed to be Paul’s; although he 
concedes, all along, that only such books were regarded by the ancients 


76 § 12. ITS ANTIQUITY AND CANONICAL AUTHORITY. 


as canonical, as had the stamp of apostolical origin. The church of 
Rome he regards as universally rejecting our epistle, until the latter half 
of the fourth century. The later Arians doubted its canonical authority. 
In modern times, Cajetan and Erasmus of the Romish church also doubt- 
ed its Pauline origin. Among the Protestants, Calvin, Beza, Luther, 
Carlstadt, Chemnitz, J. Schroeder, Hunnius, L. Hutter, and others, have 
some of them denied the Pauline origin and canonical authority of the 
epistle ; while others have placed it in the second or third rank of ca- 
nonical books, regarding it rather in the light of a book profitable for 
Christian edification, but not of itself decisive in a controverted question 
as to matters of faith. Among this number Bleek has placed himself, at 
the close of his section on this subject. 

Cajetan, Erasmus, Calvin, Beza, the Remonstrants (e. g. Limborch and 
his associates), and the Socinians (e. g. Socinus de Auctorit. Sac. Script. 
I, 2), while they doubt or deny the Pauline origin of the epistle, admit, or 
at least do not call in question, its canonical authority. Calvin even as- 
cribes it to the artifice of Satan, that some deny its authority ; see his r- 
gumentum to his Commentary on the epistle. 

This is not the place to controvert some of the positions of Bleek, in 
regard to the views of the ancient church. I must refer the reader to the 
sequel in which the testimony of the ancients is adduced and examined. 

In regard to the doubts concerning the full canonical credit due to our 
epistle, that have been expressed by Luther himself and some of his distin- 
guished followers, one may venture to say, that there is reason to suspect 
Luther of being somewhat influenced in his criticism, by his views of the- 
ology or exegesis ; for he finds, or thinks he finds, “ wood, hay, and stubble,” 
as well as “ gold, silver, and precious stones” in our epistle ; Walch’s edit. 
of Luther. xrv. p.146seq. ‘That for such a reason he rejected the epistle of 
James, is notorious. Then the question between the Lutherans and Ro- 
man Catholics assumed such a shape, that every thing which the Catho- 
lies admitted on the ground of ancient tradition, that could be well denied 
or rendered doubtful, was in faet denied by the leading disciples of Lu- 
ther in the first and second generation. Now as there were doubts in 
some of the ancient churches, and particularly in the Romish, about 
the Pauline origin of our epistle ; and as the modern Romish church fully 
admitted its Pauline origin; so it was some matter of triumph for Luther 
and his followers, to set the ancient church at Rome against the modern 
one, and thus to exhibit the want of consistency in a church that claimed 
to be infallible. 

When the heat of this controversy passed away, the Lutheran church 
in general returned to the common sentiment in regard to the origin of 
our epistle. It is only of late, that opposition to its Pauline origin and 
canonical authority has again sprung up, mostly among the neological 
critics of Germany. 

Admitting, however, the early existence and general credit of this epistle, 
there still remains the most difficult of all the questions which have been 
raised respecting it: “ Who was its author? Was it Paul, or some other 
person >” This very important question deserves, and must receive, a 
particular and thorough discussion. 


§ 13. WAS PAUL THE WRITER OF THE EPISTLE ὃ 17 


§ 13. Was Paul the writer of the epistle to the Hebrews 2 


From whatever source the epistle to the Hebrews is derived, every 
reader of it must perceive that it comes from a man of deep feeling, of a 
benevolent heart, of extensive knowledge, and of views in respect to the 
spiritual nature of Christianity, as exalted as can be found any where in 
the New Testament. Every attentive reader of the Mosaic law, moreo- 
ver, must feel, that the epistle to the Hebrews is the best key to unlock 
the treasures which are secreted there ; and that it affords us a disclosure 
in respect to the general nature and object of the Jewish dispensation, 
which Christians much need, and which can no where else be found in a 
manner so full and satisfactory. 

But this, however*torrect or important it may be, cannot establish the 
fact that Paul wrote the epistle. We must not virtually assume this posi- 
tion from reasons @ priori, or because we may wish it to be so. It is as 
uncritical to believe without any evidence, as it is to reject evidence when 
it is offered. It is uncritical also to establish, (or rather to attempt estab- 
lishing), a position that concerns a simple matter of fact, by any reasoning 
a priort. To investigate the present question in a becoming and candid 
manner, we must lay aside prejudice either in respect to the affirmative 
or negative of it; and also our previous opinions, which have been deriv- 
ed merely from education, and have not been established on the basis of 
proper evidence. 

The epistle to the Hebrews has no subscription. Consequently we are 
left either to conjecture who the author was, or to gather it from evidence 
external or internal. Conjecture in respect to an epistle the claims of 
which are supposed to be authoritative, can give no real satisfaction to the 
thorough inquirer. Circumstantial evidence is that, then, to which we 
must necessarily resort, since the signature of the author is wanting. 

I make these observations here, because it has seemed to me, that very 
much more has been demanded by some critics in order to prove that 
Paul wrote this epistle, than the nature of the case admits or even re- 
quires. Their demands would amount to nothing less than the signature 
of the writer himself, or direct testimony that he wrote it, given by wit- 
nesses present when he did so. 

In the investigation of the question, ‘ Who was the author of an anony- 
mous letter that is almost 1800 years old, written in an age and country 
where literary records (if they at all exist) are accidental and not design- 
ed Ὁ it cannot be justly required, that proof of a direct, unequivocal, and 
positive nature should be produced. Where is the anonymous letter of 
antiquity that could ever be assigned to any particular author, if demands 
such as these were made in respect to it ? 

The question is not, whether the point in dispute can be rendered certain 
by plain and indubitable testimony, (for then how should it ever have 
been disputed ?) but, all things considered, whether there is not a proba- 
bility in favour of supposing Paul to be the author of it—a probability de- 
duced from evidence external and internal—which is sufficient to quiet 
our reasonable doubts, and to command our prevailing belief. 

It is not modern critics only, who have been divided on this question. 


73 § 14. resTimony oF 


The ancient Christians early differed in opinion about it, for several cen- 
turies ; the Latin or occidental Christians, after the second century, mere 
generally rejecting it from their canon, as they did not reckon it to be 
Paul’s; while the Greek, or rather the oriental, Christians generally receiv- 
ed it as coming from the hand of the apostle Paul. 

I shall divide the evidence in respect to this question, into external and 
internal. By the former, I mean whatever can be gathered from the 
Christian fathers, or ancient writers, or the tradition of the churches, 
respecting the epistle; and by the latter, the characteristics of the epistle 
in respect to sentiment, style, and diction, compared with the acknowl- 
edged letters of Paul, and also certain facts which are adverted to in the 
epistle itself. 

The great deficiency of genuine early Christian records, for many years 
after the completion of the New Testament, is a fact acknowledged, and 
lamented by all who study either the early history of the church, or that 
of its sacred books. A few fragments only we have, of Barnabas, Cle- 
ment of Rome, Papias, Hermas, Ignatius, Polycarp, and some others; in 
most instances too short, and too imperfectly preserved, to afford any 
strong ground of satisfaction to the critical inquirer. 


§14. Testimony of the Alexandrine church. 


The evidence that the epistle to the Hebrews was early recognized as 
one of the sacred books, has been already exhibited. The first testimony 
that we have respecting Paul’s being the author of the epistle, is that of 
Pantaenus, the head of the celebrated Christian school at Alexandria in 
Egypt, who flourished about A. D.180. This testimony was inserted by 
Clement of Alexandria, the disciple of Pantaenus, and his successor in 
the famous school just mentioned, in a work of his entitled “Yxotumeces, 
Institutions or Sketches. This work is now lost; but Eusebius has pre- 
served an extract from it, in his Ecclesiastical History Lib. νι. c. 14. 
Pantaenus himself was the most learned Christian of the age in which he 
lived, and one whose weight and authority in the churches was very 
great. 

Clement, in the extract preserved by Eusebius, is endeavouring to as- 
sigu a reason why Paul had not subscribed his name to the epistle to the 
Hebrews. After giving his opinion in regard to this point he adds, “ As~ 
our worthy presbyter [so he here calls Pantaenus] has already said, Since 
the Lord himself was sent by the Almighty as an apostle to the Hebrews, 
Paul being an apostle to the Gentiles, on account of modesty does not 
subscribe himself as the apostle to the Hebrews, both out of reverence 
for his Lord, and because, being a preacher and an apostle to the Gen- 
tiles, by a kind of supererogation he wrote to the Hebrews.” * 


* "Hon δὲ ὡς ὃ μακάριος ἔλεγε πρεσβύτερος, ἐπεὶ ὁ Κύριος ἀπόστολος ὧν, τοῦ 
σαντοχράτορος ἀπεστάλη πρὸς “Εβραίους, διὰ μετριότητα ὃ Παῦλος ug ἂν εἰς τὰ 
ἔθνη ἀπεσταλμένος οὖκ ἐγγράφει ἑαυτὸν “Εβραίων ἀπόστολον" διά τε τὴν πρὸς τὸν 
κύριον τιμην, διά τε τὸ ἔκ περιουσίας καὶ τοῖς “Εβραίοις ἐπιστέλλειν, ἐϑνῶν κήρυκα 
ὄντα καὶ ἀπόστολον. Lib. VI. 14. 


THE ALEXANDRINE CHURCH. 79 


Two points are equally clear from this testimony ; the first, that Pan- 
taenus entertained no doubt of Paul’s being the author of the epistle to 
the Hebrews, the whole passage implying as well as asserting this; the 
second, that still, either from the suggestions of his own mind or from 
those made by others, objections had been raised against this opinion, be- 
cause the epistle lacked the usual subscription or inscription of Paul. 
The attempt to solve these doubts, necessarily implies that they had been 
suggested from one of these sources; but from which, we cannot tell 
with certainty. Still, if they arose from objections, is it not probable that 
some allusion would have been made to them ὃ 

Tam very ready to allow, with some recent critics, that the attempt at 
solution is but a poor specimen of critical reasoning, and that is insuffi- 
cient to accomplish what Pantaenus designed to accomplish. For how 
was it necessary, as he seems to suppose, that Paul should have subscrib- 
ed himself an apostle to the Hebrews, if he had put his name to the epis- 
tle? If he declined doing this, “because his Lord and Master was the 
apostle of God to them,” as Pantaenus says, still he might (as on other 
occasions he actually does) have called himself an apostle of Jesus 
Christ ; or he might, as he twice does, have called himself ἃ servant of 
Jesus Christ, Phil, 1: 1. Tit. 1:1; or he might, as he twice does, have 
simply written his name Paul, 1 Thess. 1:1. 2Thess. 1:1. Why should 
he have been any more diffident with respect to doing this in the present 
case, than in any other ἢ 

As to his diffidence arising from being an apostle to the Gentiles, which 
made him, as Pantaenus supposes, decline subscribing his name in an 
epistle to the Hebrews, so much weight cannot well be attributed to it. 
The writer of our epistle has told the persons addressed of his cireum- 
stances, and of his companions; he has also asked their prayers that “he 
might be speedily restored to them ;” all which necessarily implies, that 
his name was not designed to be wholly concealed, and could not be so 
concealed, from those whom he directly and originally addressed: so that 
neither of Pantaenus’ reasons for Paul’s declining to subscribe his name, 
appears to have any considerable weight in it. 

Eichhorn and Bertholdt, it must be acknowledged, have refuted the 
good father’s critical reasoning on which I have just animadverted ; but 
they should not (as they appear to have done) substitute this for a confu- 
tation of his testimony also. Bertholdt moreover maintains, that Pantaenus 
has simply expressed an opinion that Paul wrote the epistle to the He- 
brews ; an opinion merely his own, and not founded on any tradition. 
This he endeavours to prove by the following argument. ‘It is clear 
that Pantaenus’ expressions imply the existence of persons, in his time, 
who maintained the opinion that Paul was not the author of the epistle to 
the Hebrews. Now if general tradition maintained that he was, how 
could there be any such persons? For at this time, it was easy to trace 
a tradition of this nature up to its primary source,’ Einleit. p. 2918. 

But. has there ever been a period since the gospels or epistles were 
written, in which more or less of them were not discarded by some, and 
doubted by others? Have there not been some such men as Ebionites, 
Alogi, Marcionites, and others of similar character, in every age and al- 


80 § 14. TESTIMONY OF 


most in every country ? And can it be a valid objection to a book, or to 
testimony respecting it, that such men have rejected it or doubted it? If 
so, then the whole New Testament must be given up at once, and the ef- 
fort to maintain its genuineness abandoned as a task utterly hopeless; for 
what part of it has not been discarded by some of these, or such like sec- 
tarians ? 

Does Pantaenus, I ask, tell us whence the doubts in question arose ; 
whether from his own mind, from heretics, or from the members of the 
catholic church ? Nota word of this. Be it then that they came from 
whatever quarter you please, or from all quarters ; the weight of his tes- 
timony is increased, rather than diminished, by the objections. For how 
does the case now stand? Pantaenus had heard objections to the apos- 
tolic origin of the epistle suggested, by members of the catholic church, 
or by heretics; or he had sometimes entertained them in his own mind; 
yet such was the strength of his conviction, arising from the evidence op- 
posed to these doubts, that he now hesitates not in the least to consider 
it as an established point, that Paul was the author of this epistle. He 
speaks of it as being his, without intimating that there is any good ground 
to call it in question. 

Now whence did Pantaenus derive such a conviction—Pantaenus, who 
was at the head of the first Christian school in the world ; who resided 
near Palestine, and where constant communication was all the time kept 
up with that country ; Pantaenus, who lived within a century after the 
apostolic age ? It cannot be shown, nor in any way rendered probable, 
that he had any favourite or peculiar sentiment to be supported by the 
epistle to the Hebrews, which was the reason why he defended its apos- 
tolic origin. Iam aware of the allegation made by some, that the epis- 
tle to the Hebrews was already received in the churches as one of the 
sacred books ; and that, as some doubted respecting it because it wanted 
an apostle’s name to sanction it, Pantaenus, in order to save its credit 
and defend the custom of the churches in receiving it as canonical, as- 
signed the reasons produced above why Paul did not subscribe his name 
to it. But is not this, after all, conceding the very point which it is 
meant to deny? “The epistle to the Hebrews was already received by 
the churches; therefore Pantaenus defends it!” Indeed? And how 
came it to be received? Whence this general credit already obtained ? 
A credit so strong, a custom of reception so general, as to inspire Pan- 
taenus with entire confidence in its canonical authority, and raise him 
above all the objections which had been suggested. And how comes it, 
that no epistles should have made their way into the canon, amid all the 
conflicting opinions, and various apocryphal and supposititious writings of 
the early ages of the church, but those which either bear an apostle’s name, 
or were by general consent assigned to an apostle? This is a fundamen- 
tal question, in respect to the great subject of the authority of our New 
Testament canon. Jt isan articulus stantis vel cadentis auctoritatis, in 
respect to it. And the answer to this question plainly is, that the catho- 
lic church in the primitive age, taken as a body, were governed by the 
maxim, that no book or epistle could be properly regarded as canonical, 
‘ except such as was written by an apostle, or under his direction. 


ALEXANDRINE CHURCH: PANTAENUS. Sl 


I am far from denying that particular churches, and even particular re- 
gions of country, did, near the close of the second century, and after- 
wards, regard as sacred some of the apocryphal books of the Old 'Testa- 
ment and of the New. The quotations from them by the Christian 
fathers, is conclusive evidence of this. But then such books, for the 
time being, were of course estimated as holding a rank entitled to the 
credit of inspired books. And in repect to the apocryphal writings of the 
New Testament, it is clear that they were regarded, (where they were ad- 
mitted as canonical), as either coming from the hands of apostles, or as 
having been written with their approbation or under their inspection. 
Nothing can be more evident, than that there was a constant verging of 
the church as a body, toward the point of limitation in respect to canoni- 
eal credit, that has just been stated. That some churches and persons 
should have committed mistakes respecting the extent to which the prin- 
ciple adverted to would carry them, is not at all to be wondered at, con- 
sidering the state of literary knowledge at that period. But that such 
mistakes were not committed by the predominant part of the churches, 
is demonstrated from the state of the New Testament, ever since the ear- 
liest period ; the received books of which are only those which were re- 
garded as being of apostolic origin or revision, and were generally be- 
lieved to be so. 

Such being the fact we may ask, and we ought to ask, How came the 
epistie to the Hebrews into the canon; so that Clement of Rome in the 
very first century, and Pantaenus in the next, refer to it as Scripture ? 
Why plainly, because an apostolic origin was attributed to it. Pantaenus 
regards this as certainty ; and Pantaenus says, that the apostle who wrote 
it was Paul ; διά τε 10... . τοὺς Εβραΐοις ἐπιστέλλειν [Π|αῦλο»]. 

I readily concede, that he is not a witness contemporary with Paul. 
But he is a witness, (and one of the very best the age afforded, in which 
he lived and was so distinguished as a man of knowledge), of what the 
opinion of the churches then was. Is it not evident, that in the passage 
under consideration he is defending the usual opinion of the churches in 
regard to our epistle; and that he is not merely delivering his own pri- 
- vate sentiments? The manner in which he speaks, plainly declares this. 

Moreover, that he did speak the opinion which was prevalent and gen- 
eral at this period, is rendered still more probable by the fact, that at least 
as early as the time in which he lived, probably earlier, the Syriac trans- 
lation in the East, and the old Latin version in the West, as we have al- 
ready seen, were completed; both of which went into general use in 
those countries, and both of which comprise the epistle to the Hebrews, 
In regard to the Syriac, it may be further noted, that while it was made too 
early, as it would seem, to comprise the 2d epistle of Peter and the 2d and 
3d epistles of John, (which for various reasons came later into circulation 
than the other epistles), it still comprises the epistle to the Hebrews. Are 
not these facts, then, when taken together, good evidence that the credit 
of this epistle was early and widely diffused, and that it was regarded at 
a very early period, by the great body of the churches, as of apostolic 
origin? ΤῸ which of the apostles it was assigned by current belief, and 
of course by current tradition, Pantaenus informs us. 


ll 


82 ᾧ 14. TESTIMONY OF THE 


Let it be distinctly noted, that all this took place within about a cen- 
tury after the apostolic age, (and probably less); “ when tradition,” as 
Bertholdt says, “might be easily traced back to its origin.” Does not 
then the testimony of Pantaenus, whom Photius (Cod. 118) represents to 
be not only a hearer of those who had seen the apostles, but of some of 
the apostles themselves, supported as it is by concurrent testimony of the 
canon of the churches in the East and in the West, amount to satisfacto- 
ry evidence, in regard to general ecclesiastical tradition, at the time in 
which this father lived? And if so, does not this plead strongly for the 
probability that Paul was the author of the epistle ἢ 

Iam unable to distinguish the testimony in question of Pantaenus, 
from that of other writers whom Bertholdt quotes as good support for the 
genuineness of other books of the New Testament. How many hun- 
dred testimonies has he quoted, where the witness does not say whether 
he delivers his own opinion or recites tradition! Yet Bertholdt takes 
these and such like testimonies as legitimate evidence, when he sets out 
to establish the genuineness of any books of the New Testament, or of 
any ancient writing. Why then should he resort to the extraordinary, 
the unsupported, (I may say) improbable supposition, that Pantaenus has, 
in the case before us, only delivered his own private opinion? Even if it 
were 80, the questions, On what was the opinion grounded? what in- 
duced him to believe so? would present serious difficulties in respect 
to the suggestions which Bertholdt has made ; as I have already shewn. 

At any rate, the principle which Bertholdt assumes here, would render 
it utterly impossible ever to establish the genuineness of any of the New 
Testament books ; and, I may add, of any other ancient book. A princi- 
ple fraught with such consequences, cannot, either with propriety or safe- 
ty, be admitted into our critical investigations. 

I regret to add, that Bleek, in his recent work on the epistle to the 
Hebrews, after a brief recitation of the testimony of Pantaenus, remarks at 
the close (p. 98), that this testimony does not declare whether the con- 
viction of Pantaenus originated from historical tradition, or later critical 
investigation ; hereby intimating, that unless this could be known from 
the testimony, very little weight can be attributed to it. What is this but 
virtually to destroy not only the great body of evidence, in regard to the 
genuineness and authenticity of the New Testament, but of most classical 
authors also? [5 this critical justice and impartiality? How much of all 
the testimony that exists in respect to any ancient writing, expressly tells 
us whether the person who gives it derives his views from the judgment 
of his own mind, or from historical tradition? And what monument of 
antiquity can stand, before such an ordeal as Bleek thus virtually pro- 
poses ? 

The importance of this discussion, which treats of testimony so early 
and respectable in regard to the subject in question, will, I hope, be a 
sufficient apology for the length to which it has been protracted. 


ALEXANDRINE CHURCH : CLEMENT. 89 


Pantaenus was succeeded, in his school, by the celebrated CLEMENT oF 
ALExanpetA, near the close of the second century. Clement, as he tells 
us in the first book of his Stromata (p. 274. Lardner, Cred. 11. 462), had 
travelled in Greece, Italy, the East, and Egypt, in quest of knowledge, 
and employed masters in all these countries. With Pantaenus he settled 
down in Egypt; and he represents this teacher, though last in time, as 
first in merit. He compares him to the Sicilian bee, that had gathered 
flowers from the prophetic and apostolic meadows ; and represents him 
as filling the minds of his hearers with pure knowledge. 

Clement, then, was well qualified to judge what was the general usage 
and tradition of the churches, in respect to the canon of Scripture ; as he 
had traversed a great part of the regions where churches were planted. 
His testimony (extracted from a work of his entitled “Ὑποτυπώσεις), is 
preserved by Eusebius in his Ecc. Hist. L. VI. ο. 14. “In his book,” 
says Eusebius, “ Clement affirms that Paul is the author of the epistle to 
the Hebrews ; and that, as it was addressed to Hebrews, it was originally 
written in their language, and afterwards translated by Luke for the use 
of the Greeks; which is the reason why the colouring of the style is the 
same in this epistle and in the Acts of the apostles. The reason why 
Paul did not affix his name at the head of it, probably is, because the 
Hebrews had conceived a prejudice against him and were suspicious of 
him. Very prudently, therefore, he did not place his name at the head 

of the epistle, so as to divert them from the perusal of it.” * 

~  Kichhorn and Bertholdt have endeavoured to shew here also, that Clem- 
ent’s testimony is only his own private opinion, or at most, that of his 
master Pantaenus. Eichhorn attacks the apology which Clement makes 
for Paul’s omitting to prefix his name to the epistle; and seeming to tri- 
umph over this, he dismisses the whole of the testimony along with it. 
Bertholdt has pursued a course somewhat different. Pantaenus he re- 
presents as giving one reason why the name of Paul is omitted ; Clement, 
another. This contradiction, he avers, proves that neither Pantaenus nor 
Clement rested on tradition as their support, but only followed their own 
conjecture. 

This conclusion is somewhat singular. What is the point in question ? 
Simply, whether Paul wrote the epistle to the Hebrews. Pantaenus says 
that he did ; Clement asserts the same ; both, as it appears, without any 
doubt or hesitation in their own minds. How came they by this confi- 
dence? Clement derived it, says Bertholdt, from his master Pantaenus. 
But from whom did Pantaenus derive it? Whence did he get so much 
confidence respecting this point, as to overcome all the obstacles thrown 
in the way of such a belief? He appears to have been a man of great 
sobriety, knowledge, diligence, and excellence of character. He was no 


Ἔν δὲ ταῖς “Ὑποτυπώσεσε. ... τὴν πρὸς “Εβαίους ἐπιστολὴν Παύλου μὲν 
εἶναι φησί" γεγράφϑαι δὲ “Εβραίοις ᾿Εβραικῇ gory «“Τουκᾶν δὲ φιλοτίμως μεϑερ-- 
μηνεύσαντα ἐκδοῦναι τοῖς “Ελλησιν. “Οϑεν τὸν αὐτὸν χρῶτα εὑρίσκεσϑαι κατὰ τὴν 
ἑρμηνείαν ταύτης τῆς ἐπιστολῆς καὶ τῶν πράξεων. Mr) προγεγράφϑαι δὲ τὸ, Hav 
hos ἀπόστολος, εἰκότως" “Εβραίοις γάρ φησιν ἐπιστέλλων πρόληψιν εἰληφόσε κατ᾽ 
αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἱποπτεύουσιν αἰτὸν, συνετῶς πάνυ οὐκ ἐν ἀρχῆ ἀπέστρεψεν αὐτοὺς τὸ 
ὄνομα ϑείς. Lib. VI. 14. 


84 § 14. TESTIMONY oF THE 


innovator ; nor does it appear that he πὰ δὴν pride of speculative opin- 
ions and conceits to foster. But because he answers the doubts that had 
been suggested against Paul’s being the author of the epistle to the He- 
brews in one way, and Clement in another, “ this,” says Bertholdt, “is 
contradiction, and it shews that neither of these fathers grounded his opin- 
ion on tradition, but on his own conjectures.” Contradiction in what? 
Are these two fathers agreed on the great point in question, viz. whether 
Paul was the author of the epistle? This is conceded. Where then is 
the contradiction? “'They are not agreed how the doubts raised against 
it should be solved.” What follows? “Why,” as Bertholdt avers, “ that 
they grounded not their opinions on tradition.” That is, (if this have 
any appropriate meaning), that tradition had not brought down to them 
the mode of solving these doubts; since they were not agreed in the 
mode of solving them. But what if tradition had, as is most probable, 
handed down to them neither doubts nor solutions; and that the solu- 
tions they proposed were of newly raised doubts, which about this time 
began to appear in some of the occidental churches—solutions drawn, as 
I would most freely concede, from their own personal views, rather than 
from tradition ; what, I ask, has the manner of solving these doubts to do, 
with the main point at issue? Nothing at all; and be it that Eichhom 
has triumphed over both the good fathers, Pantaenus and Clement, in 
shewing the incompetency of their reasoning to solve the doubts then 
raised, it leaves their testimony, as to the great point at issue, quite un- 
touched. 

I am not disposed, however, to concede so much to Eichhorn’s reason- 
ing, in respect to the assertions of Clement. If Paul did write the epis- 
tle to the Hebrews, and direct it to a church in Palestine, every one ac- 
quainted with his history knows, that the Hebrews in that country, at 
least very many of them, were affected towards him as Clement has re- 
presented them to be; and this might be a proper and adequate reason 
for not setting down his name at the head of his epistle. 

“ But Paul,” says Eichhorn, “has not shrunk from openly professing 
his name on all other occasions.” This may be true. But to what oth- 
er part of the church did he write, cireumstanced as the Jews of Pal- 
estine were ? Does not a prudent man change the mode of his address, 
as circumstances may require ? 

“ But after all, the author has not concealed himself. At the close of 
the epistle, he has developed circumstances which must certainly make 
him known.” I grant it, in respect to the church whom he immediately 
and primitively addressed ; but the case would not be the same in respect 
to other churches, for whom, also, there can be but little doubt, the epistle 
was ultimately designed. At least, those who read it would first have 
been subjected to the influence of its reasoning and its eloquent and pow- 
erful remonstrances, before they would come to make the inquiries about 
the author, suggested by the circumstances at the close. May not the 
author who could write such an epistle, well have trusted to its power in 
disarming prejudices, which the appearance merely of a name at the out- 
set might have heightened? And might not Clement, who travelled 
through the East and over so many countries, have thus become ac- 


ALEXANDRINE CHURCH : CLEMENT. 835 


quainted with the manner in which the difficulty was commonly solved 
which he proposes? This solution, although Eichhorn thinks it to be 
so incompetent, is still a much more probable one than that of Pantaenus ; 
nay, I must think that it is in itself by no means destitute of probability. 
How can it be shewn in any way to be incongruous, that such a reason 
should have influenced Paul to withhold his name ? 

But further; Bertholdt says, “Another proof that Clement did not 
ground his testimony on tradition, is, that he declares the epistle to have 
been originally written in Hebrew; and that Luke translated it into the 
Greek language ; and thus he merely undertakes, in his own way, to ac- 
count for the diversity of style between this epistle and those of Paul, and 
its similarity to that of the Acts of the apostles.” 

Be it so then, for the sake of argument. But still, what is the amount 
of this? Nothing more than that Clement undertakes to meet an ob- 
jection, raised from the style of the epistle; and to show how this style 
could be somewhat diverse from Paul’s, and yet the epistle derive its 
origin from that apostle. How can this determine that Clement did not 
ground his belief of Paul’s being the author of the epistle on the tradition 
of the church, rather than on his own conjecture ? 

In fact, that Clement should have remained entirely unmoved in his 
opinion, by all objections made to Paul’s being the author of our epistle, 
proves just the reverse of what Bertholdt has endeavoured to establish. 
It proves, beyond all reasonable controversy, the strength and constancy of 
his opinion which triumphed over all such obstacles; and which to do 
this, must, as it seems to me, have been supported, in his own mind, by 
the general voice of the churches among whom he had travelled. 

But further to invalidate the testimony of Pantaenus and Clement, Ber- 
tholdt suggests, that “they were inclined to favour the epistle to the 
Hebrews, on account of the Alexandrine spirit which reigns in it,” [he 
means the spirit of allegorizing and finding secondary senses to language] ; 
and “to establish the credit of a favourite letter, they attributed it to 
Paul, being supported in this by the apparent similarity which it has to 
his writings.” 

Now since this is altogether gratuitous conjecture, it might not improp- 
erly be answered by conjecture that such was not the case. I will sug- 
gest, however, that it is by no means certain, either that Pantaenus or 
Clement were natives of Alexandria. The probability is, that they came 
there partly as learners, but principally as teachers; and that their opin- 
ions were not formed, merely by the fashion of interpreting the Scrip- 
tures at Alexandria. Besides, what ground is there to suppose that these 
fathers, conscientious and deeply imbued with reverence for the Scrip- 
tures as they were, would have been persuaded by attachment to the Al- 
exandrine spirit of allegory, to foist a book into the cannon of the New Tes- 
tament as Paul’s, when they had no evidence on which to ground such an 
opinion? And how comes it, that at this very period, this same epistle was 
inserted in the canon, in the Itala of the western churches, and the Peshito 
or old Syriac version of the eastern ones? Did Pantaenus and Clement 
effect this? They had no concern with the management of either of 
these churches. Christians then in the East and West, far distant from 


86 § 14. TESTIMONY OF THE 


i] 
Alexandria, did ascribe canonical authority to this epistle ; and if they did 
so, there is of course good reason to believe, that they ascribed the epistle 
to an apostle as the author. What probability can there be, then, that 
Clement and Pantaenus ascribed this epistle to Paul, merely on the ground 
of their own private opinion or local prejudices ? 

In addition to the above principal passage from Clement, others may 
be cited which serve to shew the uniformity and the strength of Clement’s 
conviction, in regard to the Pauline origin of our epistle. E. g. Stromat. 
i. p. 362, where in the midst of a literal quotation from Heb. 11: 1, 2, 6, 
Clement adds, χατὰ toy ϑεῖον ἀπόστολον, according to the divine apostle, i. e. 
Paul. Again, p. 364, after quoting Heb. 11:3 he adds, φησὶν ὃ ἀπόστο- 
doc. In p. 420 he cites Heb. 6: 11, 20 in connection with Gal. 5: 6, and 
both as the declarations of Paul. Ibid. 1v. p. 514 seq. he cites Heb. 10: 
32—39 and 11: 36—39, expressly calling them the declarations of the 
same apostle who wrote Phil. 4: 11—138, which he had just cited. In p. 
525, he attributes Heb. 12: 14—16. 13: 4 to the same apostle who wrote 
Tit. 2: 3, which he had just cited. In p. 577 he cites Heb. 5: 12—6: 1, 
expressly as the words of Paul; and again, in p. 645, he cites a part of 
the same passage in the same manner. 

All this testimony Bleek sets aside, by the very same remarks which he 
makes, as above cited, on the testimony of Pantaenus. How easy it 
would be to explain away, in this manner, the force of all ancient testimo- 
ny respecting any monument of antiquity, who can fail to perceive ? 

The sum of testimony for the second century has now been presented, 
Its importance is greatly magnified, by its proximity to the time when the 
epistle was written, and when tradition respecting it might be traced back, 
as Bertholdt avers, without much difficulty, by a sober and interested in- 
quirer. ‘That at the close of the first century, the epistle to the Hebrews 
was not only extant, but in full credit as a canonical writing at Rome, we 
have seen in the examination of the testimony of Clement of Rome. 
That at the close of the second century, it occupied a place in the canon 
of the eastern, the western, and the intermediate churches, follows from 
the testimony that has now been examined. ‘That Paul was the author 
of this epistle, appears to have been the firm belief of the most celebrated 
theological school then existing ; and that this belief harmonized with that 
of the churches in general, who required evidence of apostolic origin or 
approbation, in order to entitle an epistle to a place in the canon, seems 
quite probable, and is contradicted by no circumstances with which we 
are acquainted. 

We may now advance to the former part of the third century, and ex- 
amine a few of the principal witnesses. 


The celebrated Orn1GEN, second to none of the fathers (except Jerome) 
as a critic, and in general learning superior to them all, the disciple and 
the successor of Clement at Alexandria, is, in all respects, a most impor- 
tant witness to be examined. He spent his life in the study and explana- 
tion of the Scriptures; and his testimony in regard to the canon of Scrip- 


ALEXANDRINE CHURCH: ORIGEN. 87 
ture, at the time when he flourished (A. D. 220), is of greater weight than 
that of any other individual of the same period. 

The most explicit testimony of Origen is that which Eusebius has pre- 
served, Ecc. Hist. VI. 25; being an extract from one of Origen’s homilies 
on the epistle to the Hebrews. ‘The passage runs thus in Eusebius; “ In 
respect to the epistle to the Hebrews, Origen decides thus in his homilies 
upon it:/'The character of the style of the epistle to the Hebrews has not 
the unpolished cast of the apostle’s language, who professes himself to be 
a man unlearned in speech, i. e. in phraseology. Besides, this epistle, in 
the texture of its style, is more conformed, to Greek idiom; as every 
one must confess, who is able to distinguish differences in style. More- 
over the ideas in this epistle are admirable, and not inferior to those 
which are confessedly apostolic ; and that this is true, every one must 
concede who has attentively read the writings of the apostles. A little 
further on he adds, If I were to give my opinion I shauld say, the phra- 
seology and the texture belong to some one relating the apostle’s senti- 
ments, and as it were commenting on the words of his master. Jf any 
church therefore hold this to be an epistle of Paul, let it receive commendation 
on account of this (εὐδοκιμείτω καὶ ἐπὶ τούτῳ), FOR IT IS NOY WITHOUT 
REASON (ov εἰκῆ), THAT THE ANCIENTS HAVE HANDED IT DOWN (παράδε- 
δώκασι, have had a tradition) as BEING or Paut. Who wrote the epistle, 
[γράψας, penned it or committed it to writing], God [only] knows with 
certainty ; but the report which has reached us is, that some affirm it to 
be written by Clement, bishop of Rome; and some by Luke who wrote 
the Gospel and the Acts.”|. Euseb. Hist. Ecc. VI. 25. Lard. IV. p. 235. 

This passage has been appealed to for different purposes, by writers of 
different sentiments ; by some in order to shew that Origen doubted, by 
others to shew that he did not doubt, about Paul’s being the author of the 
epistle in question. Omitting an account of what others have said, let us 
endeavour to elicit the sentiments of Origen, by considering this passage 
in connection with other passages to be found in his writings. 

(1) It is plain that Origen felt the force of the objection against the 4 


* Bleek translates, ‘so verdiene sie auch deshalb keinen Tadel,” 1. 6. zt de- 
serves no blame on this account ; a cold negative enough for εὐδοκιμείτω καὶ ἐπὶ 
, . . . 5 
τούτῳ. Is this being impartial ? 


t .....7Egl τῆς πρὸς “Εβραίους ἐπιστολῆς ἕν ταῖς εἰς αὐτὴν ὁμιλίαις ταῦτα δια-- 
λαμβάνει" ὅτι ὃ χαρακτὴρ τῆς λέξεως τῆς πρὸς “Εβραίους ἐπιγεγραμμένης ἔπιστο-- 
λῆς οὐκ ἔχει τὸ ἐν λόγῳ ἰδιωτικὸν τοῦ ἀποστόλου, ὁμολογήσαντος ἑαυτὸν ἰδιώτην 
εἶναι τῷ λόγῳ, τουτέστι τῇ φράσει. “Adhd. ἐστὶν ἡ ἐπιστολὴ ουνϑέσει τῆς λέξεως 
᾿“Ἑλληνικωτέρα, πᾶς ὃ ἐπιστάμενος κρίνειν φρόσεων διαφορὰς ὁμολογήσαι ἄν. Πάλεν 
TE αὖ OTL τὰ νοήματα τῆς ἐπιστολῆς ϑαυμάσιά ἐστι, καὶ οὐ δευτέρα τῶν ἀποστολι-- 
κῶν ὁμολογουμένων" καὶ τοῦτο ἂν συμφήσαι svar ἀληϑὲς πᾶς ὁ προσέχων τῇ 
ἀναγνώσει τῇ ἀποστολικῇ. Τούτοις wed ἕτερα ἐπιφέρειν λέγων: ᾿Εγὼ δὲ ἀπο-- 
φαινόμενος εἴποιμ ἄν, ὅτε τὰ μὲν νοήματα τοῦ ἀποστόλου ἐστίν" ἢ δὲ φράσις καὶ 
ἡ σύνϑεσις, ἀπομνημονεύσαντός τινος τὰ ἀποστολικὰ, καὶ ὡσπερεὶ σχολιογραφή-- 
σαντος τὰ εἰρημένα ὑπὸ τοῦ διδασκάλους. Ἐ τις οὖν ἐκκλησία ἔχει ταύτην τὴν ἐπι-- 
στολὴν vie Παύλου, αὕτη εὐδοκιμιείτω καὶ ἐπὶ τούτῳ, Οὐ γὰρ εἰκῆ οἱ ἀρχαῖοι ἄν-- 
δρες ὡς Παύλου αὐτὴν παραδεδώκασι. Tis δὲ ὁ γράψας τὴν ἐπιστολὴν, τὸ μὲν 
ἀληϑὲς Debs οἶδεν: ἡ δὲ εἰς ἡμᾶς φϑάσασα ἱστορία, ὑπό τινων μὲν λεγόντων, ὅτε 
Κλήμης ὁ γενόμενος ἐπίσκοπος “Ῥωμαίων ἔγραψε τὴν ἐπιστολήν" ὑπό τινων δὲ, 


€ ’ 


ore Aovuas ὃ γράψος τὸ ΠΒιαγγέλιον καὶ τὰς Πράξεις. Ecc. Hist. VI. 25. 


88 § 14. ΤΕΒΤΙΜΟΝΥ͂ oF THE 
authorship of Paul, drawn from the style and manner of the epistle, in 
the same way as his preceptor Clement had before done; and to meet 
this objection, he. suggests a reason similar to that which Clement had 
suggested. Clement says, that the epistle was first written in Hebrew, 
and then translated by Luke into Greek ; and thus he endeavours to ac- 
count for the supposed diversity of style between this epistle and those of 
Paul. But Origen does not appear to have at all supposed that it was writ- 
ten, at first,in Hebrew. He supposes it to have been for substance deliver- 
ed, dictated, or spoken by the apostle, and penned down by some one who 
used his own diction, commenting as it were on the words of his master. In 
this way, the sentiments are regarded as apostolic and authoritative ; while 
the diction is considered as arising from one not an apostle; and thus the 
full credit of the epistle is maintained, while the objection to this credit, 
drawn from the diversity of style, is apparently removed. 

(2) It should be noted, that Origen does not say, whether the objec- 
tions against the epistle to the Hebrews being the production of Paul, 
arose from his own mind, or from the allegations of others. Most proba- 
bly from both sources. He appears to have had a full conviction, that 
there was a diversity of style in it; and to remove the difficulty about the 
eredit of the epistle, which arose in his mind from this circumstance, he 
resorted to the supposition just mentioned. We can have no reasonable 
doubt, that at this time there were some, who alleged that this epistle did 
not come from the hand of Paul; as Pantaenus and Clement had, before 
this, made an effort to remove objections against it.* 

(3) The very manner in which Origen attempts to remove objections, 
shews that he gave full credit to the apostolic origin of the epistle. ‘The 
thoughts, he avers, ‘are apostolic, and worthy of an apostle ; but the dic- 
tion is derived from another.’ And when he says, It is not without reason 
that the ancients have handed it down as belonging to Paul; and then adds, 
“but who wrote it, God knows, some attributing it to Luke, and some to 
Clement;” nothing can be plamer, than that he means to suggest, that 


* Origen (in Matt. 23: 27. Opp. T. 111) seems to intimate, that there were some 
who doubted the authority of our epistle. ‘Sed pone aliquem abdicare episto- 
lam ad Hebraeos, quasi non Pauli.” Yet this may be nothing more than hypo- 
thetical. Bleek builds more on this than it is fairly capable of supporting, when 
he deduces from it (p. 103) the conclusion, that our epistle was not every where 
received as Paul’s. The fact may have been true; and doubtless it was; but the 
ground of proof lies not, with certainty, in the passage of Origen now in question. 

But there is another passage of Origen (Epist. ad Africanum), in which he 
speaks of the βουλήματι τῶν ἀϑετοίντων τὴν ἐπιστολὴν ὡς ov Παύλου γεγραμμένην, 
the inclination of those who reject the epistle as not being Paul's ; and he then 
adds: ‘¢ With one who does thus, other reasons must be privately employed, in 
order to shew that Paul was the author of the epistle.” 

Bleek complains (Review p. 12), that I have omitted the two preceding passa- 
ges of Origen, in my first edition of this work ; and he says, that in these Origen 
clearly states that the Pauline origin of our epistle was denied. This is true of 
only one of the passages ; and in the other, Origen very clearly shews that he 
was of a different opinion from those who denied that Paul was the author. In 
what respect, then, would the insertion of the passages in question have altered 
my statements? I have fully admitted that some, in the time of Origen, denied 
the Pauline origin of the epistle to the Hebrews, and that what Origen savs im- 
plies this. What more do the citations in question prove than this? 


ALEXANDRINE CHURCH: ORIGEN. 89 


he considers it to be uncertain who penned it, i. e. reduced it to writing ; 
for he had just asserted that the thoughts were suggested by the apostle, 
while the diction arose from him who reduced them to writing. To sup- 
pose (as has been supposed) that Origen means to assert, that God only 
knows from whom the sentiments of the epistle sprung, or who the author 
in this sense was, is to suppose that Origen has directly contradicted 
himself in the very same paragraph. Therefore, 

(4) When Origen says that some attribute it to Luke, and some to 
Clement, the probability clearly is (from the connection in which this 
stands), that he means to say, ‘Some attribute the penning or writing of 
it down, to the one or the other of these persons.’ If this be so, (and it 
appears to be very plain that it is), it only serves to shew, that Origen did 
not consider the tradition about Luke and Clement as well establish- 
ed; and especially so, as the traditionary reports were not agreed respect- 
ing the amanuensis or recorder of the epistle. It is possible, I acknowl- 
edge, that Origen meant to say, thatsome attributed the real authorship to 
Luke or Clement; although I cannot think that this opinion has any 
probable support in the passage of Origen now under consideration, if it 
be explained by any just rules of interpretation. Bleek, however, with 
some other critics, have taken it for granted that Origen did speak here 
of real authorship. But besides the absolute prohibition to do this, con- 
tained in the preceding context, it is clear that in ancient times, Origen’s 
words, or rather the story about Luke and Clement, were not understood 
in such a way. E. g. Euthalius (fl. 460), who knew of doubts about the 
Pauline origin of our epistle, s says, when speaking of this epistle, πρὸς γὰρ 
“Ἑβραίους τῇ σφῶν διαλέκτῳ γραφεῖσα, ὕστερον μεϑερμηνευσϑῆναι λέγεται, ὡς 
μέν:τιψες, ὑπὸ Aovze, ὡς δὲ οἵ πολλοὲ, ὑπὸ Κλήμεντος, i. e. for the epistle being 
written in the Hebrew dialect, it was afterwards interpreted, as some say, by 
Luke ; as many others, by Clement. Euthalius, it is to be noted, was a 
resident at Alexandria. Here then is evidently the very ἱστορία of Ori- 
gen ; and can we well suppose that this was not the usual and _tradition- 
ary interpretation of it? See the passage in Zacagni Collect. Monum. 
Vet. ete. p. 523, and in Bleek I. p. 148. See also the remarks on the tes- 
timony of Eusebius, No. 3. 

(5) It is clear that Origen ascribes his own belief, and the belief of the 
churches of his time, that the epistle was Paul’s, to ancient tradition. “If 
any church receive this epistle as Paul’s, let it be commended for this; 
for it is not without reason, ἐμαί the ancients (οἵ ἀρχαῖοι) have handed it 
down (παραδεδώκασι) as Paul’s.” Tere two things are asserted ; first, that 
the tradition of its being Paul’s is well grounded, i in Origen’s view, οὐκ 
εἰκῆ παραδεδώκασι; and secondly, that it is an ancient tradition, for οἵ 
ἀρχαῖοι ἄνδρες so thought and said. 

I cannot ‘well account for it, that Kichhorn and Bertholdt have kept 
out of sight this direct testimony of Origen to the tradition of the church- 
es. Eichhorn has indeed quoted it (ὃ 271), but made no comment upon 
it; while Bertholdt has broken the paragraph into two parts, and quoted 
what precedes the clause in question in one place (Ρ. 2944), and that 
which follows it in another (p. 2956); while he has wholly omitted the 


elause under consideration. The opinion of Pantaenus and Clement, that 
12 


90 § 14. ΤΕΒΤΙΜΟΝΥ oF THE 


Paul wrote this epistle, had previously been ascribed by these critics, 
either to their own conjectures, or to the influence which the views of 
the church of Alexandria had over them in respect to this subject. Ori- 
gen also“is represented by them, as struggling between his own convic- 
tions and the prejudices of the times, in respect to the point in question, 
and as falling at last upon the Eres that ‘the sentiments are the 
apostle’s w hile the diction is another’s,’ in order to reconcile his own views 
and the current prejudices of the rleseantvine church. These critics 
have been very careful to render prominent the expression of Origen, who 
wrote it God [only] knows, report attributing it to Clement and to Lake ; 
and they have quoted this too, without adverting at all to the evident 
meaning of it, which is, ‘who penned or wrote it down is uncertain, re- 
port attributing it to different men; using the expression just as if Origen 
had simply said, ‘who was the author of the epistle, God only knows. See 
Berth. Einl. § 648, Eichh. § 271. Besides this, Bertholdt represents 
Origen as asserting, that an ancient tradition, brought down ‘even to his 
time, attributed the authorship of the epistle to Luke (p. 2955), or to 
Clement (p. 2958) ; but that Origen, believing neither of these ancient tra- 
ditions, declared that ‘God only knows who composed it’ One cannot 
help remarking, how leaning towards a favourite hypothesis will help to 
obscure one part of testimony, and make another to stand out in relief. 
That οὗ ἀρχαῖοι ἄνδρες, as Origen asserts, have not without reason declared 
ihe episile to be Paul’s, this critic has passed over with profound silence. 
On the other hand he says, “it is an ancient tradition,” “ propagated down 
to the time of Origen, that either Clement or Luke composed it.” But 
Origen himself does not say this. His words are simply, “‘ Who wrote it 
[i. 6. penned it down] God knows, 7 δὲ εἰς ἡμᾶς φϑάσασα ἱστορία, but a 
report has come to us, that it was either Clement or Luke.” Now where 
is the ancient tradition, brought even down to Origen’s time, ascribing the 
composition of the ἘΠ to two different men, neither of whom Origen 
believed to be the author ? So far from this, Origen says not a word here 
of ancient tradition ; nor even of tradition at all. He does not say that 
either ὃ ἱστορία παλαιά, or παφάδοσις παλαιά, brings down this report; but 
simply ἢ εἰς ἡμᾶς φϑάσασα ἱστορία, i. 6. report has come to us, or it is re- 
ported, there is a report, report says, that either Luke or Clement wrote it. 
Now he might have used the same expression, I freely concede, if such 
report had been ancient; but he might use the same, too, in reference 
merely to the reports of his day ; at which time, no doubt, various diffi- 
culties were raised in some of the churches, respecting the Pauline origin 
of the epistle. Certainly then, Bertholdt has no right to represent Origen 
in the manner he does, as averring that ancient tradition assigned the au- 
thorship of the epistle to Luke or to Clement. 

Indeed, the language which Origen employs in this case, would seem 
to be designedly different from that which he employs in the sentence 
wholly omitted by Bertholdt, which runs thus: “ If any church holds this 
epistle to be Paul’s, it deserves commendation for this; because οὐκ εἰκῇ 
the ancients have handed it down to us, that it is Paul’s.” Observe the ex- 
pressions οὗ ἀρχαῖον and Teen dediincon words altogether appropriate to 
the designation of truly ancient tradition, and not to be mistaken; while 


ALEXANDRINE CHURCH : ORIGEN. 91 


the report concerning Luke and Clement is announced simply by ἢ εἰς 
ἡμᾶς φϑάσασα ἱστορία, leaving it wholly indeterminate whether this re- 
port is recent or ancient ; for φϑάσασα surely does not of course desig- 
nate the antiquity of the report. Why Bertholdt should thus magnify this 
part of Origen’s assertion, and wholly omit all notice of the other which 
cannot be misunderstood and is not liable to misconstruction, is best 
known to himself. But thus much may properly be said : If the testimony 
of the ancients (or moderns) is to be managed in this way, then we may 
assert, with equal truth, our inability to prove any thing, or our ability to 
prove aliquid ex aliquo. ἶ 

That Origen was not in the doubtful state about the epistle, which the 
critics just named represent him to be, may be clearly evinced from other 
passages in his writings, even if the one already examined were to be re- 
garded as dubious. For example ; Comm. on John (II. p. 18. ed. Huet), 
“ According to this the apostle says,”* and then quotes Heb. 5: 12. That 
by this apostle he meant Paul, other passages in the same commentary 
clearly show; 6. g., “In the epistle to the Hebrews the same Paul says,”} 
Ρ. 56; again, “Paul in the epistle to the Hebrews,”t p. 102, In his book 
against Celsus, he says: “For it is written by Paul, in his letter to the 
Corinthians....and the same apostle says;”§ and then he quotes Heb. 5: 
12, contra Cels. p. 482. ed. Bened. In his treatise on prayer, he quotes 
the epistle to the Hebrews, as an epistle of the same apostle who wrote 
the epistle to the Ephesians, De Oratione I. p. 250. ed. Bened. In a 
homily preserved in a Latin translation, he says: “ Paul himself the 
greatest of the apostles, writing to the Hebrews says;”|| and then he 
quotes Heb. 12: 18, 22, 23. He also appeals to this epistle as authorita- 
tive in establishing any position; 6. g. Comm. in John If. 57,58. ed. Huet, 

In Princip. ILI. 1.§ 10, Heb. 6: 7, 8 is cited as “an example which the 
apostle used in the [epistle] to the Hebrews.” Ibid. IV. 13, he twice 
cites words out of Heb. 8: 4, which are inserted as Paul’s words among 
other passages taken from his acknowledged epistles. Ibid. IV. 22, he 
cites Heb. 12: 22, seq. with Gal. 4: 26, ascribing both to the same apostle. 
The same passage he cites as the words of the apostle, Lib. contra Cels. 
VII. 29. In Praefat. ad Princip. he cites Heb. 11 : 25, 26 as the express 
testimony of Paul. In his Principia (Vol. 1. edit. de Ia Rue) are other 
testimonies of the same nature, on pp. 55. 56. 65, 82. 92. 141. 187. In 
his Exhort. ad Martyr., he quotes Heb. 10 ; 32—36 as Paul’s. In Homil. 
I. in Jerem., he quotes Heb. 1:4 as the words of the apostle. Ibid. 
Homil. IX., he cites Heb. 6: 1 as the words of the apostle ; also in Homil. 
XVIII, Heb. 8:5 is cited. In Praef. in Johan. (ed. Huet. I. p. 2), 
Heb. 4: 14 is cited in the same way. Ibid. 22, the same passage is again 


* Κατὰ τοῦτό φησιν ὁ ἀπόστολος, ὅτι x. τ. A. loc. cit. 

t Kot ἐν τῇ πρὸς “Εβραίους, ὁ αὐτὸς Παῦλός φησι" x. τ. ἢ. loc. cit. 

t Ὃ δὲ Παῦλος, ἐν τῇ πρὸς ᾿Εβραίους" x. τ. A. loc. cit. 

§ Τέγραπται γὰρ παρὰ τῷ Παύλῳ ἡμῶν Κορινϑίοις ἐπιστέλλοντε ..... ὁ δὲ 
αὐτὸς .... φησὶ; καὶ γεγόνατε χρείαν ἔχοντες, x. τ. A, loc. cit. 

|| Ipse ergo apostolorum maximus... . Paulus... .dicit, ad Hebraeos scri- 
bens, etc. Homil. II]. in Num. p. 281. edit. Benedict. 


92 § 14. TESTIMONY OF THE 


cited in the same way. Ibid. Tom. III. p. 64, he says, Kat ὃ Παῦλός φησι, 
quoting Heb. 11: 16. In Tom. IX. p. 140, he ascribes Heb. 8:5 to the 
apostle ; as also Heb. 9: 23. In Tom. X. p. 162, he ascribes Heb. 12: 22, 
23, to Paul. Tom. XXXII. p. 416, he cites Heb. 1: 3, as the words of 
Paul. In Homil. VII. in Jos., he ascribes fourteen epistles to Paul, (which 
of course included our epistle.) 

These testimonies can leave no doubt what the opinion of Origen was, 
as to the real authorship of the epistle, however he might account for 
what he deemed the peculiar colouring of the style. It is surely quite a 
subordinate question, Who was the amanuensis or translator of Paul ? 
The important question is, Did the sentiments originate from him? Is he 
the real author of them? If Origen has not developed his opinion res- 
pecting these questions, beyond all doubt, I know not that it is in the 
power of Janguage to do this. If he has not most explicitly averred, that 
the then ancient tradition taught this, and for good reason, I am unable to 
conceive how he could have averred it. 

Bleek, after citing the passage from Origen on p. 87 above, remarks 
(p. 107) that “ Origen felt himself compelled, in his critical conscience, to 
deny Paul’s proper authorship of the epistle, and to content himself with 
ascribing only the thoughts of the same to this apostle; while the develop- 
ment of these thoughts is attributed to one of his disciples and compan- 
ions.” He is candid enough however to admit, that “ Origen does not 
explicitly say, whether, in his view, this development was made by the 
direction of Paul himself, or without it; and consequently he does not 
say, whether we are to regard the apostle as speaking in the epistle, or 
only him who wrote it down,” p. 107. 

In regard to these criticisms, I would inquire, in the first place, What 
is it which makes the real authorship of any epistle? Is it the thoughts 
themselves, or the livery in which they are clad? 1 have always been 
accustomed to suppose, that the person itself of ἃ man makes a man; and 
this, whether it is decked in one kind of costume or another? Says 
Origen, τὰ νοήματα [τῆς ἐπιστολῆς] τοῦ ἀποστόλου ἐστίν" ἡ δὲ φράσις καὶ ἢ 
σύνϑεσις, ἀπομνημονεύσαντός τινος τὰ ἀποστολικά ; See p. 87 above. Which 
now are the real matters of importance in an epistle? The thoughts 
(νοήματα), or the diction and synthesis, φράσις καὶ σύνϑεσις 2 This may 
be settled in favour of Prof. Bleek’s sentiment, when it shall be decided 
that the bark of a tree is more substantial than the wood, or when the 
shell is proved to be more important than the nut. 

Paul the author of the sentiments in a letter, and yet not substantially 
the author of the letter ; and Origen, in his eritical conscience, bound to 
deny that Paul was the author! It may be so; yet it must be first shewn, 
that the ideas (νοήματα) of a letter, are not the letter, but that it consists in 
something else. 

It is true, indeed, that there is a certain kind of authorship, whieh may 
be predicated of him who regulates the form of diction, and the order of 
composition or synthesis. But is not this the authorship which belonged, 
for example, to the private secretary of the late emperor of France ; and 
which belongs to all other secretaries, under men of like qualifications ? 
Who can mistake the real authorship in all the communications of Bona- 


ALEXANDRINE CHURCH: ORIGEN. 93 


parte? His were the νοήματα ; the φράσις καὶ σύνϑεσις belonged to his 
secretaries. 

Of what possible importance can it be then, as to the question respect- 
ing the real authorship and authority of the epistle to the Hebrews, wheth- 
er Paul himself wrote it down, or not? While the νοήματα are his, that 
settles all the questions which can be of any great consequence. And so 
much, Bleek admits fully, Origen ascribes to him. 

As to the other point, viz. that ‘Origen does not say whether he who 
wrote the epistle did it by his direction ‘and authority or not ;? it is true that 
the passage of Origen in question (supra p. 87), does not say this in so 
many words. But. does not the assertion, that τὰ γοήματα τοῦ ἀποστόλου 
ἐστίν, imply this ? And does not ἀπομνημονεύσαντός τινος τὰ ἀποστολικά, 
and τὰ εἰρημένα ὑπὸ τοῦ διδασκάλου imply this? And if they do not, still 
the numerous, direct, and unequivocal testimonies just cited above, (to 
which more might easily be added if it were necessary), shew that Ori- 
gen not only believed Paul to be the author of the epistle to the Hebrews, 
but that he every where appeals to it as fully sanctioned by his authority. 

(6) Let us ask, how far back testimony must have gone, in order to 
be ancient in Origen’ 5 time 5 2? Nothing can be weaker than the assertion, 
that Origen refers, i in his ἀρχαῖοι ὝΡΕΞΕ to Clement and Pantaenus; both 
of whom were his cotemporaries, and lived until he was about thirty years 
of age. Pantaenus died about 211, as Jerome affirms; Clement, about 
A. D. 217 or 220; and Origen was born A. 1). 184 or 185. Now as Ori- 
gen lived but little more than a century from the apostolic age, nothing 
can be plainer, than that the οὗ ἀρχαῖον ἄνδρες must mean, either those 
who were conversant with the apostles, or at least the generation suc- 
ceeding them. This not only confirms what I have already endeavoured 
to prove, from Clement of Rome, from the testimony of the Italic and 
Syriac versions, and from Pantaenus and Clement, viz. that the epistle to 
the Hebrews was canonical in the primitive age of the church; but it 
shows, beyond reasonable doubt, that Pantaenus and Clement believed 
Paul to be author of the epistle to the Hebrews, in common with the 
churches of their times, on the ground of ecclesiastical tradition, and not 
from their own conceit, or their own prejudices in favour of Alexandrine 
notions. 

(7) It appears that Origen was strongly impressed with the conviction, 
that the style of the epistle to the Hebrews was different from the usual 
one of Paul. Yet so firm was his conviction that the epistle for substance 
did originate from Paul, that he has not only often ascribed it directly to 
him obiter, but given us at large his views, viz. that he considered Paul as 
the author of the thoughts or ideas. At the same time he endeavours to 
account for it, without prejudice to this opinion or to church tradition, 
that the costume of the epistle is not Pauline, by supposing a disciple of 
Paul to have recorded the conceptions of his master in his own language. 
That Origen should have adhered to what he declares to be the tradition 
of the ancients respecting the author of this epistle, under such circum- 
stances, and beset with such doubts, exhibits in a most striking manner 
the strength of his convictions, and the weight of tradition in its favour. 

(8) The allegation made by Eichhorn and Bertholdt, that Origen con- 


94 § 14. ΤΕΒΤΙΜΟΝΥ OF THE 


ceded the epistle to the Hebrews to be Paul’s, from forbearance to the 
prejudices of the church at Alexandria, and out of love to the allegory 
which is in it, the credit of which he would wish to defend, has no real 
support. In regard to his prejudices in favour of the church at Alexan- 
dria, we cannot suppose them to have been very strong ; for he was ban- 
ished from this place, in :the midst of his public labours, when he was 
about 48 years of age, and he spent the last 22 years of his life principal- 
ly at Cesarea and in its neighbourhood, never returning again to Alexan- 
dria. Yet in works published long after he resided at Cesarea, he as- 
cribes to Paul the epistle to the Hebrews. And in regard to the allegory 
of this epistle, if this were the principal reason for receiving it into the 
canon, then why did he not also receive the epistle of Barnabas, the Shep- 
herd of Hermas, and many other pieces of a similar nature, in which 
the ancient church abounded? We may well be permitted to ask, in- 
deed, why should we ascribe any other motive to Origen for receiving 
this epistle, than what he declares to have been a sufficient and commend- 
able one in the churches, viz. that the ancients, Nor WITHOUT REASON, had 
handed it down as Paul’s 2 

Bleek (Review p. 13) avers, that Origen does quote the epistle of Bar- 
nabas, and also the Shepherd of Hermas, as canonical books; and that 
Clement of Alexandria also does the same. But is it not certain, that al- 
though apocryphal books are quoted by both these writers, in a way sim- 
ilar to that in which they sometimes quote the books of Scripture, still, in 
other places, they shew that they only quote them as being credible, seri- 
ous, and edifying books? ‘That a distinction, after all, was made between 
books apostolical and books which were not so; and especially that this 
was made by Origen; who can doubt or deny? ‘The state of the canon 
itself, in the days of Origen, shews clearly enough what the views of the 
churches at large were, in relation to this subject. 

(9) Bleek also alleges (Comm. I. p. 107), that ‘from the passage on p. 
87 above, it appears that Origen knew of few churches at that time, who 
acknowledged the_Pauline origin of our epistle ; otherwise he could not 
have said, εἴτις οὖν ἐχκλησία ἔχει ταύτην τὴν ἐπιστολὴν ὡς τοῦ Παύλου, 
αὔτη εὐδοκιμείτω καὶ ἐπὶ τούτῳ. This, says he, looks like an apology for 
such as held the epistle to be Paul’s; and that such an opinion was only 
an uncommon exception to the general usage.’ 

Yet he feels constrained to admit, that what Origen says (εἴ τις ἐχχλη- 
σία x. τ. 4.), may be hypothetical. ‘Truly it may; and considering the 
manner in which Origen has every where expressed himself, in regard to 
the epistle to the Hebrews, it must be hypothetical. Did Origen need to 
apologize for himself’ and others, who believed that οὐκ εἰκῆ οἵ ἀρχαῖον 
ἄνδρες ὡς Παύλου αὐτὴν [ἐπιστολὴν] παραδεδώκασι 33. I trow not. He means 
to say merely and simply, that ‘any and every church, which believes 
the epistle to be Paul’s, deserves commendation for it, for the belief rests 
on good grounds, as the tradition of the ancients maintains.’ How very 
diverse this sentiment is, from that which Bleek has deduced from the 
passage, must be sufficiently plain. And for the correctness of the de- 
duction which I have made, I appeal most cheerfully to the judgment of 
every competent and unbiassed reader. 


ALEXANDRINE CHURCH : ORIGEN. 95 

In regard to the ἀρχαῖοι ἄνδρες of Origen, Bleek (I. p. 108) states, (1) 
That the expression is too general to allow of any great weight being at- 
tached to it. Then (2), That Origen might have used the expression, if 
he meant to refer merely to Pantaenus and Clement of Alexandria. 
And (3) , That we must suppose, either that Origen did not consider οὗ ἀρ- 
χαῖον ἄρδρες as indicating men so ancient as that certain dependence 
could be placed on their testimony ; or, if they were really ancient, still 
he considered them as testifying merely that the epistle was in some sense 
Paul's; otherwise he never could have said, τίς δὲ ὃ γράψας τὴν ἐπιστολὴν, 
TO μὲν ree Soe οἶδε. 

On these allegations [ remark, (1) The assertion that the expression οὗ 
ἀρχαῖοι ἄνδρες is too general to carry any weight with it, does not seem 
very consistent with its meaning only Pantaenus and Clement; which 
certainly is particular enough, if that will give weight. In regard to the 
phrase in question applying to these fathers, I must refer the reader to 
No. 6 above. 

(2) The general phrase is the thing of all others which evidently gives 
it most weight. For when is traditionary evidence strongest ; when that 
tradition is general, or when it is merely partial and local? General tra- 
dition is that very thing of all, with which we ought to be best satisfied. 

(3) If Origen was not satisfied with the testimony of the ἄρχαϊοι ἄνδρες, 
why then does he commend the churches which give credit to it, for be- 
lieving it? Why does he say that the tradition of the ancients is οὐκ εἰκῇ 2 
Could he have more directly affirmed the reverse of Bleek’s proposition ? 

(4) As to the supposition, that Origen, in case he really meant ancients 
by of ἀρχαῖον ἄνδρες, designed nothing more than to affirm, that they tes- 
tified to Paul’s authorship in seme sense or other; there is no room for 
dispute here. Origen has, in the most express manner, in the context 
immediately preceding, told us in what sense he believed Paul to be the 
author. “The νοήματα are his; the φράσις καὶ σύνϑεσις come from one 
of his disciples writing down and commenting on the εἰρημένα of his mas- 
ter.” There is no room, then, for dispute here what kind of authorship 
Origen means to aver. Nor do the scores of references, every where 
made in his writings to our epistle as belonging to Paul, and author- 
itative in consequence of this, leave any room to doubt in what sense 
Origen attributed authorship to Paul, in respect to the epistle in question. 

The whole turns on the single point, therefore, whether the man to 
whom belong the νοήματα of an epistle, is really the author? And this 
will be decided against the views which I have defended, when it is de- 
cided, that the author of the ideas or thoughts in a piece of writing, is not 
the author of that writing. 


The opinion of the church at Alexandria appears to have been uni- 
formly the same, after the age of Origen. I shall very briefly notice it 
here, as testimony later than his, from this quarter, can amount but to lit- 
tle more than proof, that the opinions of himself and his predecessors 
continued to be held without variation. Besides, it is a matter of general 


90 § 14. ΤΕΒΥΙΜΟΝΥ or THE 


accord, that no doubts existed in the church here, after the time of Qri- 
gen, in regard to the Pauline origin of the epistle to the Hebrews. 

Dionysius bishop of Alexandria, who flourished about A. D. 247, attri- 
buted the epistle to Paul; and he quotes it as his, apud Euseb. Hist. Ece. 
VI. 41. So did Hierax, probably a teacher in the celebrated Christian 
school at Alexandria, about 282. It was received as Paul’s by Peter, 
about 3800, who was bishop of Alexandria, and died as a martyr under 
Diocletian, Routh. Relig. IL. p. 333. About the same time, Hierax or 
Hierakas, at Leontopolis in Egypt, appeals to the epistle as Paul’s, Epiphan. 
Haeres. LX VII. No. 2. 

Tt was received as Paul’s by Alexander, bishop in the same city, about 
313, Theod. H. Ecce. 1.3; by Antonius, a contemporary of Alexander, and 
special patron of the order of monks in Egypt, Galland. Biblioth. Pat. IV. 
665; by the celebrated Athanasius, bishop of the same place, about 326, 
Opp. I. 767; where this father recites the whole catalogue of canonical 
books, both of the Old and New Testament, and assigns fourteen epistles 
to Paul, arranging the epistle to the Hebrews before those to Timothy, 
Titus, and Philemon. Bleek acknowledges, that this father never once 
intimates a doubt about the Pauline origin of our epistle, nor that he had 
ever heard any doubt concerning it suggested by others, either in Egypt, 
or from any other quarter. How could this be, if doubts about this sub- 
ject prevailed in the churches as extensively as Bleek has persuaded him- 
self that they did ? 

To the distinguished persons in Egypt may be added, of those who 
fully believed Paul to be the author of our epistle, Oriesis, about 350, 
Galland. Bib. Pat. V. 40; Marcus. Diadochus, probably a bishop in the 
last half of the fourth century, ibid. V. 242; Didymus, the learned teach- 
er of Jerome and Rufin, and master of the catechetical school at Alexan- 
dria, about 370, Galland. Bib. Pat. VI. 313; Macarius, a contemporary of 
Didymus, and surnamed the elder or the great, Galland. Bib. Pat. VII. 178 ; 
Marcus, surnamed Eremita, Galland. VIII. 3 seg., who contends against 
certain views of the priesthood of Melchizedek, for the support of which 
an appeal was made to the epistle to the Hebrews, 7: 1 seq., and yet 
Marcus does not once call in question the authority of the epistle, or inti- 
mate that there were any doubts concerning it; Theophilus, bishop of 
Alexandria, 385—412, Galland. Bibl. VI. 603 seq. ; Cyril the successor of 
Theophilus, 412—444, a distinguished man, Opp. I. pp. 61. 63, et passim, 
who, in his controversy with Nestorius respecting the separation of the 
human and divine natures of Christ, often appealed to the epistle to the 
Hebrews, and never once intimates that there were any doubts about the 
genuineness or authenticity of the epistle; Isiodorus Pelusiota, Opp. I. 
ep. 7. 94. 444, et al. in loc. 

I cannot sum up the whole of the Alexandrine testimony better than 
in the words of Bleek, to whom I acknowledge my indebtedness for sev- 
eral valuable additions, which I have here made, to my original work on 
on the testimony of the Alexandrine or Egyptian church. 

“We find it confirmed, then, on all sides, that since the time of Origen, 
in the Alexandrine and Egyptian churches, the belief that Paul was the 
author of the epistle to the Hebrews was universal, and met with no 


ALEXANDRINE CHURCH: ORIGEN. 97 


gainsayers. Constantly do we find this epistle made use of by writers, as 
being of Pauline origin; and this without the expression of the least 
doubt on the part of any, or without manifesting any fears that doubts of 
this nature could be suggested by others,” I. p. 142, 

Most fully do I accord with this; and I thank Prof. Bleek for the can- 
dour which it exhibits. But he will permit me now to ask, How is it 
possible to account for all this, on the supposition (which he makes) that 
Origen was filled with doubts and difficulties about the genuineness of the 
epistle, and that he knew of but few churches which admitted its Pauline 
origin? Can it be said, that Qrigen had no sway as a critic, in the Alex- 
andrine churches ? I trust no one acquainted with ecclesiastical antiqui- 
ty will make such an assertion. The facts then which Bleek himself ac- 
knowledges, are absolutely unaccountable ones, on the supposition that 
he has given a correct view of the testimony of Pantaenus,\Clement, and 
Origen. Nothing can be more certain, than that the subsequent canonical 
creed of the Egyptian churches originated from the views of these three 
distinguished men. 

Here then Prof. Bleek sd myself are at issue on a point of fact, as well 
as of exegesis; and I can only make the appeal to every unprejudiged 
reader, to determine for himself. 

One thing more I must say, before I quit the present topic. In the 
ancient Christian churches, no school of theology flourished so early, 
none was ever so celebrated as that of Alexandria. None ever had such 
distinguished and liberal minded and learned teachers. Here criticism 
first assumed a form, and ventured on claiming its rights. How can 
Bleek and others account, then, for such views as prevailed here, in re- 
spect to the origin of the epistle to the Hebrews? It is a difficult prob- 
lem indeed ; above all it is so, when we consider the proximity of Egypt 
to Palestine, and the constant intercourse between the two countries. 
How came Pantaenus and Clement, who had travelled over most of the 
Christian world, to adopt such views as they did respecting our epistle ? 

To all these questions, it does seem to me, only one probable answer 
can be given; and this is, that GENERAL TRADITION among the churches 
every where, at this time, or nearly every where, assigned the authorship of 
the epistle to Paul. 

I do not wonder at the zeal of Eichhorn, Bertholdt, Ziegler, Bleek and 
others, (who have decided against the Pauline origin of our epistle from 
its style, or by their own feelings when reading it), to obscure and put in 
the back ground the testimony of the early Alexandrine fathers. But to 
do this, is impossible. A man must set aside all the ordinary principles of 
weighing testimony, who does it. He must refuse to the affirmative tes- 
timony the same justice which he claims, in order to give weight to the 
negative testimony. He must affirm, as Bleek and others have done, 
that the testimony of Clement and Origen is not competent to decide the 
Pauline origin of our epistle, because they have not told us, whether their 
views were the result of their own reasonings, or derived from tradition ; 
which in the case of Origen, is manifestly incorrect. But suppose now 
We put the question to Bleek, and to others of the like opinion, Do the 
negative witnesses whom you adduce, tell us whence they derive their 

13 


/ 
! 


/ 


98 § 15. TESTIMONY OF THE 


opinion? The answer to this question is plain enough, to any one con- 
versant with the subject; and this answer, as a general one,is Vo. How 
then do these critics bring themselves to attribute any weight to these 
negative witnesses? Why plainly because they testify in favour of a 
catise, respecting which they have before determined, (on a priori grounds, 
or others which are not more valid), that the negative is the right side 
of the question, and when this is once determined, testimony to the con- 
trary must be disposed of in the best way that ingenuity can devise. 

if those who are involved in the censure implied by these remarks, re- 
tort upon me the same accusation, £ cheerfully appeal to the candour of 
that portion (a large one) of the public who are not parties in this dis- 
pute, whether I have not distributed a consistent measure, and the like 
measure, of justice, to all the witnesses whom I have examined. Before 
this tribunal matters of such a nature must be tried ; and I will cheerfully 
submit to the final decision. 


§ 15. Testimony of the Eastern Churches. 


From Egypt let us now repair to the eastern region, and see what the 
tradition of the churches was in that quarter. 


~~ We have already seen that Justin Martyr, a native of Samaria, quotes 


from our epistle about 140. After Justin, there were no considerable 
writers in this part of the church, whose works are still extant, until the 
time of Eusebius. Methodius, however, bishop first of Olympus in Lycia, 
and afterwards of Tyre, seems to ascribe this epistle to Paul, about 292, 
Lard. VII. 261. His words, after quoting Rom.7: 14, are these: [The 
apostle] τὰς εἰκόνας ἐμπεριέχων τῶν μελλόντων ἀγαϑῶν, with a seemingly 
evident reference to Heb. 10: 1; although Bleek says (p. 144) that they 
are offenbar (evidently) nothing more than the words of Methodius himself. 
How this is evidently the case, when the resemblance to Heb. 10: 1 (σκιὰν 
ον τῶν μελλόντων ayudar) is so great, Iam not able to perceive. An- 
other passage still more evident, may be seen in Lardner; ubi supra. 
The epistle was probably received as Paul’s by Pamphilus, presbyter at 
Cesarea, about 294; as it stands in the midst of Paul’s epistles, in a manu- 
script copied from one of Pamphilus, id. VIT. 325. 

The letter sent out by the Council at Antioch, in respect to Paul of 
Samosata, (about 264), probably written by Malchion a presbyter of An- 
tioch (Hieron. Catal. 71), contains passages which are cited from our 
epistle, and one of which is directly ascribed to the same apostle who 
wrote the epistle to the Corinthians, Euseb. H. Ecc, VII. 30. Bleek ac- 
knowledges that this shews the epistle to the Hebrews as standing in 
good credit at that time at Antioch, [and of course with the bishops as- 
sembled in the Council there], so that the Pauline origin of it had noth- 
ing to fear from any gainsaying of opposers. I. p. 146. See Routh 
Reliq. Sac. I. 477. 

We know from the fact that the epistle to the Hebrews was included 
in the Peshito, that in Syria it was regarded as a canonical book in the 
second century. 


EASTERN CHURCHES: EUSEBIUS. 99 


Jacob bishop of Nisibis, also, (about 325), repeatedly quotes the epistle 
to the Hebrews as the production of an apostle ; Iterwmn apostolus dicit, 
quoting Heb. 4: 9, 113; Stcut beatus apostolus, quoting Heb. 11: 15, 16; 
see Galland. Bib. Pat. V. I. seq. 

_ Ephrem Syrus, as all confess, abundantly ascribes this epistle to Paul ; 
and this celebrated father was a disciple of Jacob of Nisibis. 

After him, there is no doubt on the part of any, so far as I know, that 
all the different parties in the Syrian churches acknowledged the canoni- 
cal authority and apostolical erigin of the epistle to the Hebrews. 

But the most important testimony from the Eastern church, (next after 
that of Origen, who lived at a period so much earlier, and spent in Pales- 
tine the most important part of his life, viz. the last twenty years of it), 
remains to be recited. I refer to the testimony of Eusebius of Cesarea, 
the well known historian of the church, who has taken so much pains to 
collect evidence from all quarters respecting the canon of Scripture. 1 
shall produce his testimony in a collected view, in order to facilitate the 
comparison of it; and then subjoin a few remarks. 

Lib. III. ο. 3. “Fourteen epistles are clearly and certainly Paul’s; al- 
though it is proper to be known, that some have rejected that which is 
written to the Hebrews, alleging, with the church at Rome, that it is 
spoken against as not belonging to Paul.” * A little after this, in the 
same book, c. 25, he reckons among the books of Scripture, which he 
calls ὁμολογούμενοιυ, (i. 6. not contradicted or gainsayed, viz. by such au- 
thority as to create any doubts, or to any considerable extent in the 
church), the epistles of Paul ; in which, beyond all question, he includes 
the epistle to the Hebrews ; for he afterwards particularizes the epistle of 
James, of Jude, 2 Pet., and 2d and 3d John, as those books which are 
ἀντιλεγόμενοι, i.e. called in question, contradicted.t Yet in VI. 13 he seems 
to intimate, that, in some sense at least, this epistle was among the ἄντι- 
λεγόμενοι, as he mentions it along with Wisdom, Sirach, the epistle of 
Barnabas, of Clement, and of Jude. In the same book, c. 38, after say- 
ing that Clement of Rome had made many extracts from the epistle to 
the Hebrews, he adds: “ Wherefore, not without reason this epistle is 
reckoned among the writings of Paul. For when Paul had written to 
the Hebrews, in their vernacular language, some say that Luke made a 
translation of it, and some that this Clement did, of whom we have been 
speaking.” { In Lib. VI. c. 20 he mentions, that “Caius in a dispute 


~ a 
* Tov δὲ Παύλου πρόδηλοι καὶ σαφεῖς αἱ δεκατέσσαρες" ore γεμην τινὲς ἡ ϑετή;- 
Η͂ IG > « Η͂ ” 
κασι τὴν πρὸς “Εβραίους, πρὸς τῆς “Ρωμαίων ἐκκλησίας, ws μὴ Πυύλου οὔσαν av- 
Ω 2 - . 

τὴν ἀντιλέγεσϑαι φήσαντες, οὐ δίκαιον ἀγνοεῖν. Hist. Ecc. UI. 3. 

t Mere δὲ ταύτην [se. τὴν τῶν Πράξεων γραφὴν] τὰς Παΐλου καταλεκτέον ἔπιο-- 

" δ) c 


τολάς" αἷς ἑξῆς κ᾿ τ΄. d+... ταῦτα μὲν ἐν ὁμολογουμένοις. Tov δὲ ἄντιε- 
λεγομένων... «ἡ λεγομένη ᾿Ιακώβου...... καὶ ᾿Ιούδα, ἥτε Πέτρου δευτέρα 
ἐπιστολὴ; καὶ ἡ ὀνομαζομένη δευτέρα καὶ τρίτη ᾿Ιωάννου. Hist. Kee. {Π|. 25. 

t Ey ἢ [sc. ἐπιστολῇ Κλήμεντος] τῆς πρὸς “EBaiovs πολλὰ νοήματα παρα- 
ϑεὶς, 10s δὲ καὶ αὐτολεξεὶ ῥητοῖς τισιν ἐξ αὐτῆς χρησάμενος, σαφέστατα περίστη.-- 
σιν ὅτι μὴ νεὸν ὑπάρχει τὸ σύγγραμμα. ἽΟϑεν εἰκότως ἔδοξεν αὐτὸ τοῖς λοιποῖς 
ἐγκαταλεχϑῆναι γράμμασι τοῦ ἀποστόλου. “Εβραίοις γὰρ διὰ τῆς πατρίου γλώτ-- 
τῆς ἐγγράφως ὡμιληκότος τοῦ Παίλου, οἱ μὲν τὸν εὐαγγελιστὴν “Τουκᾶν, οἱ δὲ τὸν 
Κλήμεντα τοῦτον αὐτὸν ἑρμηνεῦσαι λέγουσι τὴν γραφήν. Lib. Ui. 38. 


100 § 15. TESTIMONY OF THE 


against Proclus, held at Rome in the time of Zephyrinus, blames the 
temerity and audacity of his opponents in composing new writings, and 
mentions only thirteen epistles of Paul, not numbering that which is in- 
scribed to the Hebrews. Moreover, even to the present time, this epistle 
is reckoned by some of the Romans, as not belonging to Paul.” * 

In Eusebius we meet with the first ecclesiastical writer, who has de- 
signedly made out a full and regular catalogue of the canon of the New 
Testament ; and who made extensive investigation, in regard to the opin- 
ions of the church respecting this subject. From a view of his testimony, 
collected and compared together, it is clear: 

(1) That there were, in the East, some who doubted whether Paul 
wrote the epistle to the Hebrews ; and that they appealed, in support of 
this opinion, to the church at Rome. It is clear too, that in the time of 
Zephyrinus (about 212), there were persons in the western church, and 
probably at Rome, who denied that this epistle was written by Paul; for 
Caius reckons only thirteen epistles of Paul, probably omitting that to the 
Hebrews. And that this denial continued down to the time of Eusebius, 
in the church at Rome, (his words are, παρὰ “Pouaioy τίσιν, by some of 
the Romans), is clearly signified by this historian. 

(2) His assertion of the Pauline origin of the epistle to the Hebrews, is 
as unequivocal and strong as language can well make it. “Fourteen 
epistles,” [of course the epistle to the Hebrews is included, there being 
but thirteen without it], “are cuearty and cEerrarnty Paul’s, πρόδηλοι 
καὶ σαφεῖς. And again, he reckons this epistle among the books 
which are ὁμολογούμενοι, i. e. generally recognized, admitted. These decla- 
rations Eusebius makes, with a full view of the objections urged against 
this epistle by some. It is clear, then, that he did not consider those ob- 
jections as respectable enough, or sufficiently extensive, or well grounded, 
to raise any serious doubt in his own mind about this matter, or to weigh 
at all against the current and general opinion of the church on this subject. 
Consequently, nothing can be more directly to the purpose than this tes- 
timony, for demonstrating the strength and generality of the opinion in 
the church, at the time of Eusebius, that Paul wrote the epistle to the 
Hebrews. For as Eusebius has been careful, even when asserting that 
the epistle is clearly and certainly Paul’s, to note that there are some who 
dissent from this opinion, and also to collect, in various instances, ac- 
counts of disagreement in respect to it, it may be regarded as quite cer- 
tain, that he viewed opposition to it as neither well founded, nor exten- 
sive enough to raise any serious doubts about the correctness of the com- 
mon opinion of the churches. 

(3) It is pretty evident that Eusebius had heard of the objections drawn 
from the style of the epistle, which Clement of Alexandria and Origen 
had before endeavoured to answer. Eusebius thinks that Paul wrote it 


* 7 FGO0E εἰς ἡμᾶς καὶ Γαΐου λογιωτάτου ἀνδρὸς διάλογος, ἐπὶ “Ριώμης κατὰ 
Ζεφυρῖνον, πρὸς Πρόκλον τῆς κατὰ Polyas αἱρήσεως ὑπερμακοῦντα κεκινημένος" 
ἐν ᾧ τῶν δι᾽ ἐναντίας τὴν περὶ τὸ σιντάττειν καινὰς γραφὰς προπέτειάν TE καὶ TOA— 
μαν ἐπιοτομίζων, τῶν TOU ἱεροῖ ἀποστόλου δεκατρμῶν μόνων ἐπιστολῶν μνημονεύ-- 
EL, τὴν πρὸς “Εβραίους μὴ ovvageurjoas ταῖς λοιπαῖς. ᾿Επεὶ καὶ εἰς δεῦρο παρὰ 


~ 2 


“Ρωμαίων τίσιν, ov νομίζεται tov ἀποστόλου τυγχάνειν. Lib. V1. 20. 


EASTERN CHURCHES : BUSEBIUS. 101 


in Hebrew, and says that some attributed the translation of it to Luke, 
and some to Clement ; while his own opinion is, that the translation is to 
be ascribed to the latter. 

It will be recollected, now, that Origen, residing at the same place 
(Cesarea), had, nearly a century before, mentioned the very same report 
or tradition. The passage in Eusebius shews, therefore, the uniformity 
of the tradition ; it serves also to shew, that when Origen adverts to it, he 
means to say (as I have above supposed him to say), that God only 
knows who penned or wrote down the epistle ; not who was the author of 
the sentiments, for these he directly attributes to Paul; just as Eusebius 
attributes the authorship to Paul, and the diction to Clement. 

(4) One thing more is evident from the testimony of Eusebius. While 
he records, with fidelity, the fact that there were some in that quarter of 
the church who doubted the Pauline origin of this epistle, he tells us, at 
the same time, that those who did deny it, alleged the example of the church 
at Rome, in order to justify themselves in so doing. 'The necessary impli- 
cation of course is, that they could not support themselves by any credi- 
table example in the oriental churches. Would they have made an ap- 
peal for support, to a church abroad at so great a distance, if they could 
have found it at home and in their own quarter? Most surely not; for 
at that period, the church of Rome was inferior in credit to a number of 
other churches in the East. The very nature of this appeal shews, that 
respectable support for the denial of the Pauline origin of our episile, 
could not be found in the East. 

Eichhorn has, indeed, cited the above testimony of Eusebius ; but he 
has passed it without comment, excepting the single remark, that ‘ the 
reason of Eusebius for supposing Paul to have written the epistle to the 
Hebrews, was, that it was very old, and was cited so far back as the time 
of Clement of Rome ;’ a reason which, if it were well founded, would of 
course make Paul the author of all very old ecclesiastical writings, which 
had been often cited and were anonymous. 

Bertholdt has exhibited more sensibility to the testimony of Eusebius. 
He confesses that Eusebius founds his judgment respecting the books of 
the New Testament, on the tradition of the oriental church. The repeat- 
ed asseverations of Eusebius as to this point, did not permit him to con- 
clude otherwise ; although Eichhorn has left out of sight every circum- 
stance of this nature. But then, says Bertholdt, “ Did this tradition go 
back to the apostolic age? Undoubtedly not,” he answers; “it went 
back only to Pantaenus and Clement of Alexandria, who grounded it 
only upon supposition, or on their own personal views and feelings.” And 
then he goes on to assert, that ‘the epistle to the Hebrews was first fa- 
vourably received at Alexandria, because it was so congenial to the alle- 
gorizing spirit of that place ; thence the credit of it diffused itself to Anti- 
och in Syria ; and what Antioch and Alexandria believed concerning it, 
would in process of time be believed by all the other churches in Egypt, 
and in the East. Thus it came about, that in Eusebius’ time there was 
such a general consent among the churches of his neighbourhood, in the 
belief that Paul was the author of the epistle to the Hebrews.’ 

It is not necessary to answer this, except by saying, that from beginning 


+ 


102 § 15. TESTIMONY OF THE 


to end it is a series of suppositions wholly unsupported by a single histo- 
rical fact, and wholly incapable of being supported by any known facts. 
The examination through which we have already passed, has, I trust, 
afforded sufficient evidence that the suppositions in question are contrary 
to facts, and destitute therefore of any actual support as well as of any 
tolerable degree of probability. What connection had Antioch with Alex- 
andria ? And how should a single Egyptian church and school, planted 
and instituted late in the apostolic age, if not after it, influence all the 
churches of the East, planted by Paul and the other apostles, and nurtur- 
ed by their personal hearers and disciples, so as to make them receive a 
supposititious book into their canon? And why should not a multitude 
of other allegorical books, (like the Shepherd of Hermas), written in or 
near the apostolic age, have been advanced to a place in the canon by the 
Alexandrine church, and thence have diffused their credit among all the 
eastern churches? But it is unnecessary to proceed with such questions. 
If principles of argument and methods of weighing testimony respecting 
ancient writings may be adopted, like those which Hichhorn and Ber- 
tholdt have adopted here in order to maintain the theory which they 
had espoused, any ancient writing whatever may be proved to be either 
spurious or genuine, as shall best suit the notion of any individual. He 
has only to make out a series of bold and confident suppositions, and his 
work is done. 

(5) In regard to the passage quoted above (p. 99) from VI. 13, in which 
Eusebius seems to rank the epistle to the Hebrews among the ἀντιλεγό- 
μεναι; it would seem, on the whole, that he must here have reference 
merely to the fact, that there were some persons who contradicted the 
epistle ; and the other quotations here exhibited shew that he was fully 
aware of this. His own opinion is too clearly and positively given, to ren- 
der it feasible to call it in question. Nor is it probable that he has con- 
tradicted himself. The testimonies which will be added in the sequel, 
will render this sufficiently plain. 

Thus much for the direct and special testimony of Eusebius; which, 
considering the nature of his researches and his fidelity in communicating 
the results of them in respect to the Scriptural books, is of greater weight 
than that of any other writer, in regard to establishing the point that re- 
pects the canonical credit of the epistle to the Hebrews. We shall now 
see, that these direct and positive declarations are indicative of a convic- 
tion, which all his works tend to confirm that exhibit any quotations 
from the epistle to the Hebrews. 

In his Commentary on the Psalms (in Montfaucon. Nova. Collect. 
Tom. I), on Ps. IL. p. 15, he says, mgt ov φησιν ὃ Παῦλος, quoting Heb. 
12: 22 and Gal. 4: 26. In the like manner he refers to these two passages 
associated, and as the language of Paul, on pp. 191, 201, 318, 360, 388, 
431, 481, 539. In the same way both these passages are cited by him, in 
Esaiam, 49: 11. De eccles. Theol. 11. 20. De martyr. Palaest. ec. 11. 
The passage in Heb. 12: 22 is also cited in pp. 49, 50, 437, 451, 645, and 
in Esa. 25: 6. 40: 9. In p. 57, Heb. 11: 1 and 1 Cor. 13: 13 are cited 
as words of the same apostle. In p. 101, Heb. 3:13 are cited as the 
apostle’s words; so p. 175, Heb. 8: 1,2; p. 248, Heb. 11:38; p. 175, 


EASTERN CHURCHES : EUSEBIUS. 103 


Heb. 6:18; p. 615, Heb. 2:14. Vol. II. (edit. Montfaucon), p. 437, 
Heb. 11: 37; De Eccles, Theol. I. 19 § 10, Heb. 11: 24; ibid § 12, Heb. 
4:14. In his Praeparat. Evangel. (edit. Paris 1628), p. 171, Heb. 7: 7. 
6: 17, 18. 7: 20—25. Ibid. p. 592, Heb. 8: 5 is cited as ὃ ἱερὸς λόγος. In 
his Hist. Ece. II. 17, he says, ὁποίας 7) te πρὸς Εβραίους, καὶ ἄλλαι πλείους 
tov Παύλου περιέχουσιν ἐπιστολαί" i. 6. such as the epistle to the Hebrews, 
and several other of the epistles of Paul contain. 

These are evidence sufficient, to shew that Eusebius was not at one 
time of one opinion, and at another time of another; but that his convic- 
tion relative to the subject in question, was steadfast and uniform through 
life. And this will also serve to shew, that when he seems to include our 
epistle among the ἀντιλεγόμεναι, (as has been mentioned above), he could 
not do this because he was doubtful in his own mind; or because there 
was any good reason on the part of others to doubt, (for then how could 
he say, “ Fourteen epistles are clearly and certainly Paul’s ?”) but simply 
because of the fact which he well knew, that there were some who did 
oppose the canonical credit, or at least the apostolical origin, of our epistle. 


T deem it unnecessary to detail the testimony of writers in the oriental 
churches, subsequent to the time of Eusebius. I shall merely advert to 
them, because it is not denied by any respectable critics, that, subsequent 
to this period, the epistle to the Hebrews has ever been regarded in the 
East as Paul’s. Even in the midst of all the Arian controversies which 
were agitated in Egypt and in the East, neither party, as such, appear to 
have called in question the authority and apostolical origin of the epistle 
to the Hebrews. It was only in later times, and after the catholic church 
began so often to appeal to Heb. 1. for proof to establish the divine nature 
of Christ, that some of the Arian party began to call in question the au- 
thority of the epistle. 

Archelaus bishop of Mesopotamia received the epistle to the Hebrews 
as Paul’s, about A. D. 300; as did the author of the Synopsis of Scripture 
ascribed to Athanasius, and written about 320; Adamantius, about 330 ; 
Cyril of Jerusalem, about 348; the council of Laodicea, about 363, in 
their 60th Canon, directly ascribe fourteen epistles to Paul; Epiphanius, 
about 368 ; Basil, about 370; Gregory Nazianzen, about 370; Amphilo- 
chus of Iconium, a contemporary of G, Nazianzen; Gregory of Nyssa, 
about 371; Titus bishop of Bostra, about 371; Diadore of Tarsus, about 
378 ; Theodore bishop of Mopsuesta in Cilicia, about 392; and Chrysos- 
tom, about 398. The apostolical canons (Can. 85) ascribe fourteen epis- 
tles to Paul; and they were probably reduced to their present shape dur- 
ing the latter half of the fourth century. 

In addition to these personal testimonies, (if I may thus characterize 
them), it should be stated, that the arrangement itself of the epistle to the 
Hebrews, in many ancient Codices and authors, shews that it was regard- 
ed as one of Paul’s epistles. In the catalogues of the sacred books by 
Athanasius, in the Synopsis ascribed to him, in the Canons of the Coun- 
cil of Laodicea, in Theodoret’s Commentary, in Euthalius (Zacagni. p. 
548), in Mss. Cod. Alex., Vatican., Ephraemi, Coislin., in Codd. minusc. 


104 § 16. TESTIMONY OF THE 


16. 17. 22. 46. 47. 57. 71. 73, and some others, the epistle to the Hebrews 
stands next after 2 Thessalonians, i. e. in the midst of Paul’s epistles. The 
same arrangement is also found in some of the Coptic (Memphitic) Mss. 

Bleek (I. p. 171 seq.) supposes, that if the early churches had believed 
the epistle to the Hebrews to be Paul’s, they would of course have arranged 
it among or after those to the Romans and the Corinthians, in consequence 
of its rank as to length and importance. That they generally put it at the 
close of all Paul’s epistles, he thinks can be the result only of doubt about 
the author of it, or about the canonical credit due to it. 

But is it not obvious, that such important conclusions, (in the face of 
open and direct testimony too), cannot be drawn from facts of such a 
nature ? That our epistle was anonymous, was enough to occasion its being 
arranged after those to which the name of the author was affixed. Some, 
in process of time, arranged it after those acknowledged epistles of Paul, 
which are directed to particular churches ; as we have just seen above. 
But in, all this, the circumstance of being anonymous is enough to account 
for the arrangement. Matters of this kind in ancient times, were the re- 
sult of obvious circumstances, or of accident, or even of caprice. E. g. 
Isaiah is placed by the Talmud after Jeremiah and Ezekiel; but by the 
Masorites, in the order in which it stands in our present bibles. So the 
books of the Hagiography are differently arranged, in different Mss,, and 
in different countries. Yet all this determines no critical question of im- 
portance. And equally plain is it, that the arrangement of the epistle to 
the Hebrews can determine neither who the author was or was not, nor 
even who he was supposed to be. We may go so far safely, viz. we may be- 
lieve that those who put it in the midst of Paul’s epistles, did believe that it 
belonged to this apostle. But that those who arranged an anonymous epis- 
tle, after those to which an author’s name was prefixed, disclaimed his 
authorship in regard to the former, it would be difficult indeed to shew. 

Other testimonies might be named, which are mentioned in Lardner’s 
collection of testimonies, but it is superfluous. The object for which these 
have been adduced, is merely to shew the wnity and universality of the 
opinion in the oriental churches, that Paul wrote the epistle to the He- 
brews, subsequently to the time of Eusebius on whose testimony I have 
already dwelt. 

In fact, not a single writer of any respectability in the catholic church 
in all the East, has been produced, who rejected this epistle ; an extraor- 
dinary circumstance, indeed, if the belief of its apostolic origin was not 
altogether a predominant one in Egypt, and throughout all the eastern 
world. That there were individuals in this part of the church, who 
doubted or denied the authenticity of it, will certainly be admitted by 
every unprejudiced inquirer. But that there was any thing like a respec- 
table or widely diffused party, who denied it, can be supported by no 
competent evidence whatever. 


WESTERN CHURCHES : IRENAEUS. 105 


§ 16. Testimony of the Western Churches. 


In the western churches the case was certainly different. We come 
now to take a view of their opinion. 

We have already seen, that Clement of Rome, at the close of the apos- 
tolic age, has frequently quoted this epistle, and in the same way and 
for the same purposes that he quotes other parts of the Scripture ; and 
consequently we cannot entertain reasonable doubts, that he regarded it 
as a part of the sacred records. Eusebius long ago drew the same con- 
clusion. “Clement,” says he, “in his epistle acknowledged by all, which 
he wrote to the Corinthians in behalf of the church at Rome, exhibits 
many sentiments that are contained in the epistle to the Hebrews, mak- 
ing use of the very words of the epistle in several sentences, by which he 
shews most clearly, that this writing is not recent; whence it seems prob- 
able, that it is to be reckoned among the other writings of the apostle,” 
Eee. Hist. ΠΙ. 38. (See the original Greek, on p. 72 above). That it 
had such credit in this quarter of the church, for some time after this, is 
favoured by the fact, that the old Latin version probably comprises it; | 
which was made either before A. D. 150, or (as almost all acknowledge) 
before A. D, 200. 

The first negative evidence to be found among the western churches, 
respecting the question before us, is that of Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons in 
France, during the latter part of the 2d century. Neither the country 
from which he sprung, nor the time of his birth or death, are known with 
any certainty. Eichhorn has placed him at A. 1). 150, evidently in order 
to throw his testimony as far back toward the apostolic age as possible. 
Lardner places him at A. D. 178, a much more probable era. He was a 
disciple of Polycarp, when very young; for he states himself, that when 
a child, he was a hearer of Polycarp, in hither Asia, V. 20. 

Photius (fi. A. D. 858) tells us in his Bibliotheca, that Stephen Gobar, a 
writer of the middle ages, says, that Irenaeus and Hippolytus, declare 
“the epistle to the Hebrews not to be Paul’s,” Cod. 152. Eich. p. 519. 
Whence Gobar drew his conclusion, Photius does not inform us; nor 
does it any where appear. In all the writings of Irenaeus, now extant, 
no such assertion is contained ; but then several of his writings are lost. 
That Irenaeus was acquainted with the epistle to the Hebrews, and that 
he has cited it, is directly testified by Eusebius ; who says, that “he wrote 
a book of yarious disputations, in which he mentions the epistle to the 
Hebrews, and the book called the Wisdom of Solomon, quoting some 
expressions from them,”* V. 26. But Eusebius does not say whether he 
quotes them as Scripture or not; and as the book of Irenaeus to which 
he adverts has perished, we have now no certain means of judging. Storr, 
Cramer, and some other critics, have called in question this assertion of Go- 
bar, and have supposed that it is only a conclusion which he drew, from the 
fact that Irenaeus had not quoted the epistle to the Hebrews in his works. 


* Kai βιβλίον τι [sc. ἔγραψε Εἰρηναῖος] διαλέξεων διαφόρων, ἐν ᾧ τῆς πρὸς 
, γ - - , ~ τὺ ε , 
“Ἑβραίους ἐπιστολῆς, καὶ τῆς λεγομένης σοφίας «Σολομῶντος, μνημονεύει ῥητά τινα 


> 


ἐξ αὐτῶν παραϑέμενος, x. τ. Δ. Hist. Eee. V. 26. 


14 


106 § 16. TESTIMONY OF THE 


But this reasoning must of course be hypothetical. We have the bare as- 
sertion of Gobar, without the grounds; and as Irenaeus has made no use 
of the epistle to the Hebrews, in his works still extant, the probability 
would seem at first sight to be, that Gobar has given a correct statement. 
The passages produced by Lardner as possible quotations, have indeed a 
close affinity with some passages in the epistle to the Hebrews; _ but still 
they may have been taken from the Old Testament instead of this epistle, 
Lard. 1. 8368—370. Neither can the fact that Irenaeus has quoted the 
epistle to the Hebrews, (which is sufficiently vouched for by Eusebius), 
determine the question in respect to the nature of his testimony ; for sure- 
ly he may haye quoted books, which he did not regard as Scriptural. On 
the whole, in the present state of evidence, it would seem that we ought 
to admit it as probable, that Irenaeus did not include the epistle to the 
Hebrews in his canon; but on what ground, is uncertain. It may indeed 
have been the case, that this epistle, originally addressed to Hebrews in 
Palestine, had not yet obtained circulation and credit among that part of 
the church in Asia Minor, where Irenaeus lived when he was a youth. 
It is not improbable, too, that he went in early life, with Polycarp his 
teacher, to Rome ; and that he remained there until he was sent to Lyons 
in France, where he became the successor of Pothinus in the bishopric of 
that city. In this way it may be accounted for, that Irenaeus came to 
cherish doubts respecting the epistle to the Hebrews; which, we shall 
see, began to be somewhat extensively cherished in the Roman churches, 
during the latter half of the second century. 

At the same time one cannot but remark, that it appears quite singular, 
when Eusebius expressly mentions Irenaeus as having quoted the epistle 
to the Hebrews, that he should not, on this occasion or some other, have 
at all adverted to the fact of his having denied the Pauline origin of this 
epistle, if indeed such were the fact. This is the more singular, because ~ 
Eusebius has devoted a chapter of considerable length, in his work, en- 
tirely to giving an account of the manner in which Irenaeus had men- 
tioned the sacred books ; and in this chapter there is not a word of Ire- 
naeus quoted, respecting the epistle to the Hebrews, Ecc. Hist. V. 8. 

Moreover Eusebius has evidently been careful and particular, on all 
occasions where the epistle to the Hebrews was specially treated of, to 
mention objections to it; or where persons of consideration in the church 
were named who rejected it, to state this fact. Eusebius also must have 
had the writings of Irenaeus in a more perfect state and much more com- 
plete, than Gobar who lived so long afterwards. And as Irenaeus was a 
writer for whom Eusebius evidently cherished a high respect, it is really 
very difficult to account for it, that he should not have once adverted to 
the opinion which Gobar affirms was held by Irenaeus. Indeed, that 
Gobar derived his conclusion from the fact that Irenaeus has omitted to 
cite the epistle to the Hebrews, seems almost a necessary deduction from 
all these circumstances taken together. ᾿ 

Difficult, however, as this would seem to be, the supposition that Ire- 
naeus did not acknowledge our epistle, is somewhat strengthened by the 
united asseveration of Gobar and Photius himself (Eichhorn p. 519), that 
Hippolytus, (whom Photius calls a disciple of Irenaeus, and who proba- 


WESTERN CHURCHES: IRENAEUS. 107 


bly Aouridtied about A. 1). 220), asserts of the epistle to the Hebrews, that 
it is not Paul’s, Eichh. p. 520. This Hippolytus is called, by Eusebius, a 
bishop of some place ; but neither he, nor Jerome, knew its name. The 
probable opinion is, that it was Portas Romanus, Lard. IIT. 89, seq. The 
assertion in question was made, as Photius states, in a book of Hippolytus 
against heresies, which he compiled from a work of Irenaeus. But as 
the work is lost, all that remains is the statement of Gobar and Photius ; 
which seems, however, to be entitled to some credit. 

In a Review of the first edition of this work, (in the Spirit of the Pilgrims), 
the writer has with great diligence, and not a little acuteness, endeav- 
oured to shew, that there are quotations in the works of Trenaeus still ex- 
tant, out of the epistle to the Hebrews. The instances produced by him, 
and also by Lardner, I. 368—370, certainly have a great resemblance to 
some expressions in our epistle. Yet the resemblance is not such as 
seems to be decisive ; and even if the fact of quotation be admitted, (a 
fact which, as we have seen, Eusebius directly affirms in regard to a 
work of Irenaeus which is now lost), still, unless the quotation is evident, 
and also of such a nature as to show that Irenaeus attributes scriptural 
authority to it, it would not establish the point in question. It remains 
an inexplicable problem, moreover, that Eusebius should no where -have 
found passages in Irenaeus, which acknowledge the Pauline origin of our 
epistle ; at least, he tells us of no such ones: and that Irenaeus, in all his 
writings still extant, does not once quote the epistle to the Hebrews, al- 
though he might have done it to great advantage against the Gnostics. 
For these reasons, I cannot persuade myself that the passages produced by 
the Review are sufficiently decisive to warrant a change of my opinion 
in regard to the testimony of Irenaeus. 

In accordance with this denial of the Pauline origin of our epistle, is 
the testimony of Eusebius in respect to Caius. Caius is called, by Pho- 
tius, a presbyter of the church of Rome; which is quite probable, al- 
though Eusebius and Jerome simply state that he was a presbyter, with- 
out naming the place of his residence. He flourished, it is most proba- 
ble, about A. D. 210. The statement of Eusebius is as follows. 

“There hath come to us a dialogue of Caius, a most eloquent man, | | 
held at Rome under Zephyrinus, with Proclus a patron of the Montanist| | 
heresy 5 ; in which, reproving the rashness and audacity of his opponents! | 
in forging new writings, he makes mention of only thirteen epistles of the} | 
holy apostle, not numbering that to the Hebrews with the others; and) | 
even to the present time, some of the Romans do not reckon it to be} | 
Paul’s.” Lard. III. 24. Eus. Vi. 20. See the ori 
and compare Photius Biblioth. Cod. 48. 

The new writings or scriptures here mentioned, were the prophecies 
which the enthusiastic Montanists feigned to have delivered by inspira- 
tion, Montanus having declared himself to be the Paraclete; see Euseb. 
V. 14.18. Jerome states, that Caius denied the epistle to the Hebrews to 
be Paul’s; De Vir. illus. voc. Caius. But Eusebius and Photius simply 
say, that he omitted it in his account of the canonical books ; which 
however virtually implies, under such circumstances, what Jerome declares. 

In what circumstances this dialogue was composed ; whether it was 


108 § 16. TESTIMONY OF THE 


first actually held, for substance, with Proclus, and afterwards writtex 
down ; or whether it was only written, (like the dialogues of Plato, Cice- 
ro, and others), in order to represent the sentiments of Procius and con- 
fute them ; whether it was held publicly, with the approbation of Zephyri- 
nus and his presbyters, or not, we are not informed, and have no certain 
means of discovering. But I think it must be regarded as probable, that 
Caius would not venture upon the publication of such a dialogue at 
Rome, without the concurrence or approbation of the eburch there, either 
implied or expressed. 

Other evidence also is adduced, that doubts whether the epistle to the 
Hebrews was Pau!’s had already begun at Rome, and in the west, toward 
the close of the second century. Muratorius, (Antiqq. Ital. medii Aevi, 
Tom. IIT. p. 854), has published a fragment of an anonymous author, 
who probably lived near the close of the second century, that contains a 
catalogue of books which he deemed canonical, and which lacks the epis- 
tle to the Hebrews, those of James, Peter, and 3d John; while it contains 
some apocryphal books. Speaking of Pauls epistles, this anonymous wri- 
ter says, “ Fertur [epistola] etiam ad Loadicenses. Alia apud Alexrandrinos 
Paulli nomine Ποία ad haeresin Marcionis, et alia plura; quae in catholi- 
cam ecclesiam recipi non potest, fel enim cum melle misceri non congruit.” 
That is, “ An epistle is in circulation addressed to the Laodiceans. An- 
other is current with the Alexandrians, forged in the name of Paul, for 
the sake of promoting the heresy of Marcion, and many other things ; 
which the catholic church cannot receive, for it is not proper to mingle 
gall with honey.” 

Critics have supposed, that by the alia apud Alexandrinos, this writer 
means the epistle to the Hebrews, which was received by the Greeks or 
Alexandrians. But perhaps it may be doubtful whether our epistle 
to the Hebrews is meant, as this anonymous writer admits several books 
not canonical into his catalogue, and excludes several others which are so. 
Besides, he mentions another fictitious epistle, viz. that to the Laodiceans. 
Why may not this epistle among the Alexandrians, forged in the name of 
Paul, in favour of the Marcion heresy, be wholly different from our epistle 
to the Hebrews ; which has not, and never had, the name of Paul affixed to 
it? And then tieve could this writer say, forged in favour of the Marei- 
onite heresy 2 a heresy which denied the divine origin of the Jewish reli- 
gion, and rejected the God of the Old Testament ; two fundamental arti- 
eles on which our epistle to the Hebrews is built. Nothing could be 
more directly opposed to Marcion than this epistles The probability 
therefore is, that our epistle to the Hebrews is not designated by the anon- 
ymous writer in question. But if it really be the fact that he did mean to. 
designate it, his consummate ignorance of the nature of its contents, for- 
bids us to attach any weight of importance to his testimony. 

It may be added, that Zimmermann, Dissert. de Fragmento a Murato- 
rio repertum, etc., 1805, and De Wette, Einleit. ins N. Test. §21, An- 
merk. c, have called in question the antiquity of this Fragment, and have 
assigned it to the fourth century. 

But more definite and satisfactory evidence, that. about the close of the. 
second century, there were doubts among the western churehes whether 


WESTERN CHURCHES : TERTULLIAN. 109 


our epistle was of apostolic origin, may be adduced from the works of 
Tertullian. This father, who flourished about A. D. 200, says in his 
book De Pudicitia (c. 20), “'There is an epistle of Barnabas inscribed to the 
Hebrews; therefore by a man of such authority, that Paul placed him 
next to himself in respect to abstinence; ‘ Am I and Barnabas only with- 
out power to do this?’ And certainly this epistle of Barnabas is more 
received among the churches, than the apocryphal Pastor of adulterers,” 
[he means the Shepherd of Hermas]. “ Warning therefore the disciples, 
that leaving the first principles, ete.” [quoting Heb. 6: 1. ete. ἢ 

That Tertullian also alludes to the epistle to the Hebrews, in other pas- 
sages, seems to me quite probable, from the instances of this nature pro- 
duced by Lardner, II. 608—612. But it no where appears, what credit 
he attached to this epistle. It is plain from the passage quoted, that he 
ascribed it to Barnabus; and not improbable, that the churches in his 
neighbourhood, and perhaps at Rome, did the same at this period. It is 
also plain, that he does not ascribe full canonical credit to it, because he 
does not consider it as the work of an apostle; otherwise he would have 
vehemently urged its authority upon his opponents, as the passage which 
he quotes seems extremely apposite to his purpose, which was to prove 
that lapsed Christians could not again be received into the bosom of the 
church. That there was a division of opinion among the churches of his 
day, at least in the region where he lived, seems to be plainly indicated, 
by his saying that this epistle was more correct, and of more authority in 
the churches, than the Shepherd of Hermas ; which latter, however, we 
know to have been early admitted as part of the sacred records, by a 
number of churches in the West. 

On the whole, it seems to be plain that Tertullian did not admit our 
epistle to be Paul’s; and it also seems probable, that there were churches 
in that region of Africa in which he lived, who doubted or denied that it 
was his. 

Bleek, who cites the testimony of Tertullian, says at the commence- 
ment of it (p. 111), “If we look to the church in Proconsular Africa, we 
meet with fine testimonies [sch6ne Zeugnisse] for the views of this church 
etc.”; meaning that the testimony here is very decisive against the Paul- 
ine origin of our epistle. But let any one try these fine testimonies before 
a critical tribunal like that to which Bleek has summoned Pantaenus, 
Clement, and Origen, and employ the same principles which he has em- 
ployed in deciding their claims, and these schéne Zeugnisse would vanish 
into utter insignificence. How difficult it is, when one has a point which 
he is fully resolved to make out, not to betray partiality in judging of the 
weight of testimony! Where is there any thing in all the testimony of 


* Volo, tamen, ex redundantia alicujus etiam comitis apostolorum testimoni- 
um superinducere, idoneum confirmandi de proximo jure disciplinam magistro- 
rum. Exstat enim et Barnabae titulus ad Hebraeos, adeo satis auctoritatis viro, 
ut quem Paulus juxta se constituerit in abstinentiae tenore ; ‘ Aut ego solus et 
Barnabus non habemus hoe operandi potestatem?’ Et utique receptior apud 
ecclesias epistola Barnabae, illo apocrypho pastore moechorum. Monens itaque 
discipulos, ‘ Omissis omnibus initiis, ete. De Pudicitia, c. 20. 


110 § 16. TESTIMONY OF THE 


the western churches which compares, in point of explicitness and direct- 
ness, with that of the Alexandrine fathers in question ? 

Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, comes next as a witness for the negative 
of our question. He flourished about A. 1). 248, 1. 6. the next genera- 
tion after Tertullian, who died about A. D. 220. From Cyprian, how- 
ever, no direct testimony can be adduced. It is agreed that he no where 
quotes the epistle to the Hebrews in his works; which we cannot well 
account for, if he admitted its authority. ‘There is but one passage hith- 
erto produced from him, which seems to have a bearing on our question. 
It is as follows; “'The apostle Paul who was mindful of this authorized 
and well known number, [he is speaking of the number seven], writes to 
seven churches.” * This would of course exclude the epistle to the He- 
brews, as there are seven churches addressed besides this. But still, I 
cannot consider this testimony so decisive as Lardner, Eichhorn, and 
Bleek do, in respect to Cyprian’s canon. For as the epistle to the He- 
brews has no address, Cyprian, it is easy to suppose, may have had re- 
ference only to such of Paul’s epistles as have an address to churches 
prefixed ; which are seven in number. I cannot, therefore, regard this 
passage as amounting to much. 

I am the more confirmed in this opinion, (notwithstanding the strong 
assertions of Bleek, that the mention of seven churches shews decisively 
that Cyprian rejected our epistle), because I find that the epistles of Paul 
are mentioned in the same way by councils and by fathers, who certainly 
admitted the epistle to the Hebrews to be his. For example ; the coun- 
cil at Hippo, A. D. 393, and the council at Carthage, A. Ὁ. 397, (at both 
of which Augustine was present and acted a conspicuous part), in the 
catalogue of canonical books which they set forth in their Canons, make 
mention of Paul’s epistles in the following manner, viz. Pauli apostoli 
epistolae rREDECIM; ejusdem ad Hebraeos, una; Mansi Collect. Concil. 
III. 924, 821. Yet another council at Carthage, in A. D. 419, who ac- 
corded with the two councils already mentioned, reckon fourteen epistles 
of Paul. In like manner Isidorus Hispalensis, (about 500), mentions the 
epistles of Paul. His words are remarkable, and deserve to be cited here 
as throwing light on the subject in question. Paulus apostolus quatuor- 
decem epistolis praedicationis suae perstrinxit stilum. Ex quibus aliquas 
propter typum septiformis ecclesiae septem scripsit ecclesiis, conservans 
potius nec excedens numerum sacramenti, propter septiformem sancti Spiri- 
tus eflicaciam. Scripsit autem ad Romanos, Cor., Gal., Eph., Phil., 
Col. , Thess., et ad Hebraeos. That is, “'The apostle Paul used his pen 
in fourteen epistles of his preaching. Among these, some he wrote to 
seven churches by way of similitude to the seven-fold church, preserving, 
or rather not exceeding, the sacred number, on account of the seven- 
fold efficacy of the Holy Spirit.” [He probably alludes here to such an 
efficacy as is described in Is. 11:2]. Now he wrote to the Romans, Co- 
rinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Thessalonians, and 
to the Hebrews,” Opp. Tom. V. p. 215. 


* Et apostolus Paulus, qui hujus numeri legitimi et certi meminit, ad septem 
ecclesias scribit. De Exhort. Mart. cap. XI. 


WESTERN CHURHES: CYPRIAN. 111 


Is it not singular enough, that the number seven should not only be re- 
tained here, while eight epistles are expressly recounted, but that the 
writer should formally give a reason why Paul did not exceed the num- 
ber seven? What can be plainer, then, than that the mode of reckoning 
seven might be usual, even where more were ascribed to Paul? ‘The 
simple reason of this is implied in what Isidore says, viz. that the number 
seven being the express number where Paul is named, and according with 
the views in ancient times respecting sacred numbers, it was a usual thing 
to speak of Paul’s epistles to seven churches; and this would tally, of 
course, with John’s epistles to the same number of churches, in Apoc. 
1--ΠΠ]. 

Had these circumstances been well considered by Bleek and others, they 
probably would not have made so much of the circumstance in question 
as they have done. See further, on this subject, the testimony adduced 
in connection with that of Augustine in the sequel. 

In regard to Cyprian, however, the fact that he has no where quoted 
the epistle to the Hebrews, considering how many writings he has left 
behind him, and how many occasions he had to quote the sentiments con- 
tained in it, is a circumstance that seems to render it probable, either that 
he was unacquainted with the epistle, or that he did not admit its canon- 
ical authority, or that others doubted it so much that he did not deem it 
expedient to quote it. 

Novatian a presbyter of Rome (A. D. 251), the founder of the Novatian 
sect, is supposed by some critics not to have received the epistle to the 
Hebrews. ‘This inference is drawn from the fact, that he does not ap- 
peal to it, in behalf of the sentiments which he maintained respecting 
the exclusion of lapsed heretics from readmission to the church ; nor 
does he appeal to it in his book De Trinitate, nor in his treatise De cibis 
Judaicis, where one would naturally suppose that he would have direct 
and urgent occasion to appeal to it. 

There are passages in his writings, however, in which he seems to re- 
fer to the epistle to the Hebrews, e. g. “It is asserted of Christ, by pro- 
phets and apostles, that he sitteth at the right hand of the Father ;’* 
comp. Heb.1: 3. Again, “Christ is found to be greater and better not 
than one angel only, but than all the angels.” + The last of these passages 
in particular, looks very much like a quotation from Heb. 1: 4. 

Bleek, who has dwelt on the silence of Novatian in regard to the epis- 
tle to the Hebrews, and urged the importance of this negative testimony, 
has omitted to take any notice of these passages. The silence of any 
writer, at the best, can never amount to any thing more than a kind of 
negative argument in respect to any book whatever. Who can with cer- 
tainty tell, whether doubts about the authenticity of the book, or lapse of 
memory, or some other cause, occasioned the silence in question ? 

Be the case as it may respecting Novatian himself, his followers, about 
thirty years afterwards, admitted the epistle in question; as is clear from 


* At eum sedere ad dextram Patris, et a prophetis et ab apostolis approbatur. 
De Reg. Fid. c. 26. 


Τ Qui non uno, sed omnibus angelis et major et melior invenitur. Ibid. α. 20. 


112 δ 14. resTimony or THE 


the testimony of Philaster (about A. D. 880) on this subject, who states 
that they received the usual canon of the Old and New Testament, Phi- 
last. Haeres. 82. 

Victorinus, bishop of Petavio in Pannonia, near the close of the third 
century, in his book De fabrica Mundi, mentions septem ecclesiae apud 
Pauum, Routh. Reliqq. Sac. Ili. 235 seq. In another supposed work of 
his, Comm. in Apocalysin (Biblioth. Max. Pat. I. p. 569 seq.), he ex- 
pressly states the seven churches to which the apostle wrote, omitting of 
course that of the Hebrews. But as the genuineness of this work has 
been strongly suspected, and for pretty cogent reasons, much weight 
cannot be attached to this testimony. Even if its genuineness be admit- 
ted, the mention of seven churches would not seem to prove any thing; 
see above p. 110 seq. 

In addition to this it may be remarked, that Lardner, in his collections 
from this same Victorinus, has adduced some passages which tend very 
much to shew, that Victorinus was acquainted with our epistle and imi- 
tated its language. 

Phoebadius, bishop of Agen in Gaul, about 385, in his Lib. contra Ari- 
anos, does not appeal to the epistle to the Hebrews. But then, as he 
seems principally to rely on the testimony of John relative to the subject 
of which he treats, nothing very satisfactory can be deduced from this. 
See his works in Galland. Bib. Pat. V. 

The like is the case with Zeno bishop of Verona, about 360, who in 
his ninety Sermones does not cite the epistle to the Hebrews, Galland. V. 
The commentary on the epistles of Paul by an unknown author, (which 
was once ascribed to Ambrose, but now to Ambrosiaster, a mere fictitious 
name for a person unknown), probably written during the latter half of 
the fourth century, does not quote from the epistle to the Hebrews by 
ascribing it expressly to Paul; but he clearly quotes from it as Scripture ; 
e.g. in epistola ad Hebraeos scriptum est, quia Levi ete., quoting Heb. 
ἡ: 9 εἴ: 

Optatus, bishop of Mileve, about 364—375, in his book De Schismate 
Donatistarum, does not quote the epistle to the Hebrews. 

This is all the negative testimony that I have been able to find, in the 
churches of the west, previously to A. D. 400; excepting what is implied 
in some of the statements made by a few of the Latin writers, to whom I 
shall advert in the sequel. 

We have already seen, in the passage cited from Tertullian, an intima- 
tion of a difference of opinion among the western churches in respect to 
the epistle to the Hebrews, as if some received and some rejected it. On 
the other hand, Lactantius, about 306, who does not often quote Scrip- 
ture, at least with' any good degree of accuracy, seems to me to have 
some indubitable references to the epistle to the Hebrews, which Lardner 
has drawn out at length (VII. 185—188); but as they only seem to re- 
cognize the authority of the epistle, but do not ascribe it to Paul, I shall 
not adduce them here. I[ cannot, however, think it to be candid in 
Bleek, to aver that these references are no ground for supposing Lactan- 
tius to have thought differently from others in the Romish church, on the 
subject of our epistle. If others refrained from quoting it, where it would 


WESTERN CHURCHES: JEROME. 113 


have been greatly to their purpose, and Lactantius did not refrain, does 
this indicate no difference in opinion ? 

The epistle to the Hebrews was clearly received as Paul’s by Hilary 
bishop of Poictiers, about A. D. 354; by Lucifer bishop of Cagliari, 
about 354; by Victorinus a famous rhetorician at Rome, about 360; by 
Ambrose bishop of Milan, about 374; by Philaster bishop of Brecia in 
Italy, about 380; by Gaudentius his successor, about 387; and by Ruf- 
finus, about 397. 

Bleek has been careful to note, that Hilary, Lucifer, and Victorinus, 
very seldom make use of the epistle to the Hebrews ; yet the instances of 
quotation which he produces are of the most unequivocal nature, as to 
the question in regard to its Pauline origin. Such being the case now, 
in regard to those whose opinion we have certain means of knowing; 
why may it not be the case, that others have omitted to quote it at all, in 
such works of theirs as are still extant, and yet have believed it to be of 
Pauline origin? Why then should so much stress be laid on mere omit- 
ting to quote, as the writer in question frequently appears to lay ? 

In regard to others of the authors above mentioned, it is clear that they 
cite from the epistle to the Hebrews as Paul’s, and argue from it against 
opponents, just as though they neither knew of, nor expected, any opposi- 
tion to its apostolical authority. Such is the case with Ambrose. Phi- 
laster, although he shews clearly that he knew there were some who ad- 
mitted but thirteen epistles of Paul, argues in a way which proves that 
this opinion, in his view, was altogether unfounded ; and such is the case 
with others. 

But the testimony of Augustine and Jerome, whose influence appears 
to have been effectual in reestablishing the credit of the epistle to the 
Hebrews among the western churches, deserves to be adduced here, as it 
serves to shew, that the Latin churches had not been united in respect to 
the point in question. 

Jerome in his epistle to Dardanus, has the following passage. “ This 
is to be maintained, that this epistle which is inscribed to the Hebrews, is 
not only received by the churches of the East as the apostle Paul’s, but 
has been, in past times, by all ecclesiastical writers in the Greek language ; 
although most [Latins] think that Barnabas or Clement was the author. 
And it matters not whose it is, since it belongs to some ecclesiastical 
man, and is daily commended by the reading of it in the churches. But 
if the custom of the Latins does not receive it among the canonical writ- 
ings, etc.”* Again; “Among the Romans, it is not received down to the 
present time as an epistle of Paul.” This general assertion seems to 


* Tllud nostris dicendum est, hance epistolam, quae inscribitur ad Hebraeos, 
non solum ab ecclesiis Orientis, sed ab omnibus retro ecclesiasticis Graeci ser- 
monis scriptoribus quasi apostoli Pauli suscipi; licet plerique eam vel Barnabae, 
vel Clementis arbitrentur. Et nihil interesse cujus sit, cum ecclesiastici viri 
sit, et quotidie ecclesiarum lectione celebretur. Quodsi autem Latinorum con- 
suetudo non recipit inter scripturas canonicas, ete. Epist. ad Dardanum. 


+ Apud Romanos, usque hodie, quasi Pauli epistola non habetur. Opp. Tom. 
III. p. 46. 
15 


114 § 10. ΤΕΒΤΙΜΟΝΥ OF THE 


mean only, that ‘such is, or has been, the predominant custom among the 
Romans ;’ for in his epistle to Evagrius Jerome says, “which epistle te 
the Hebrews all the Greeks receive, and some of the Latins.”* In his 
epistle to Paulinus he says, “ Paul the apostle writes to seven churches ; 
for his eighth epistle to the Hebrews, is placed by most out of the number 
of his.”t And again, in his Comm. on Matt. xxvr. he says, “ Paul in his 
epistle to the Hebrews, although many of the Latins doubt concerning it, 
says, etc.” { 

As an epistle of Paul, or (which is the same) of an apostle, Jerome cites 
the epistle to the Hebrews in a multitude of passages; e. g. epist. 26 ad 
Pammach. Opp. Tom. I. 168 (edit. Paris 1643); adversus Jovin. I. 3, I. 
p- 323; ibid. If. 1, p. 361; ep, 34 ad Julian. Tom. 1. p. 210; Comm. in 
Esaiam, Tom. IV. p. 21; ibid. p. 28; and in a great many other places. 

Bleek has adduced several passages from Jerome, where he says, re- 
specting our epistle, Si quis vult recipere eam; Sive cujuscunque altertus 
eam esse putas ; Si quis tamen ad Hebraeos epistolam suscipit, ete.; and 
from these he draws the conclusion that Jerome, at times, speaks doubt- 
fully of the epistle. But what can be plainer, when all the testimony of 
Jerome is put together, than that the doubtfulness in question has no re- 
spect to his own opinion, but to that of others ? 

On a comparison of all these different passages together, the following 
appears to be the result of Jerome’s testimony. 

(1) That the majority of the Roman churches, in his time, did not re- 
ceive the epistle as Paul’s; “it is placed by most out of the number of 
Paul’s epistles.” 

(2) But some of the Latin churches did receive it still, in accordance 
with the custom of the Greek, i. 6. oriental churches ; omnes Graeci rect- 

iunt, et nonnulli Latinorum. 

(3) The reception or rejection of this epistle, as described by Jerome, 
refers (one passage only excepted) to receiving it as Paul’s, or refusing to 
admit Paul as the author. Jerome does not say, that the Roman churches 
condemned it as spurious. Nay, that he does net mean to say this, is 
very plain from his own express words; for after averring that “ most 
persons [Romans] regard it as written either by Barnabas or by Clement,” 
he goes on to say, nihil interesse cujus sit, cum ecclesiastict viri sit, et quo- 
tidie ecclesiarum lectione celebretur. ‘That is, it matters not about the per- 
son of the author, since he was an ecclesiastical man, and the churches 
every day read his epistle. But how much this exactly means, it is diffi- 
cult to say ; for the writer adds, Quod st Latinorum consuetudo non rece- 
pit inter canonicas scripturas, etc. By canonical Jerome seems to under- 
stand apostolical, or having that authority which the writings of an apos- 
tle has. So much is plain, then, viz. that in the day of this writer, the 


* Quam epistolam ad Hebraeos, omnes.Graeci recipiunt, et nonnulli Latino- 
rum. Hpist.ad Evagrium. 


+ Paulus apostolus ad septem ecclesias scribit; octava enim ad Hebraeos a 
plerisque extra numeruin ponitur. Epist. ad Paulinum. 


¢ Paulus, in epistola sua quae scribitur ad Hebraeos, licet de ea multi Latino- 
yum dubitent, etc., loc. cit. 


WESTERN CHURCHES : AUGUSTINE. 115 


churches made a distinction between writings apostolic and not apostolic ; 
and if so, it must have been by giving to the former a rank higher and 
more authoritative than the latter. On the whole, we must understand 
Jerome as meaning to aver, that while some of the Latin churches admit- 
ted Paul to be the author of the epistle to the ‘Hebrews, and regarded this 
epistle as canonical in the highest sense, most of these churches doubted 
whether Paul was the author, and consequently gave the epistle but a 
secondary place in their canon; or rather, they read it with the other 
books of Scripture for edification, but (probably) did not appeal to it as 
authoritative. 4 

The testimony of AvuGusTINE is direct, and sufficiently ample. In his 
book de Doctrina Christiana, II. 8, he mentions in his catalogue of canoni- 
cal books, quatuordecem epistolas Pauli apostoli; among which he particu- 
larizes the one ad Hebracos. It is true, that in the context here he speaks 
of a difference to be made among the canonical Scriptures themselves, 
the ὁμολογούμενοι being preferable, in point of weight, to the ἀντιλεγόμε- 
vot. Yet this distinction determines nothing respecting what he thought 
of the authorship of our epistle; certainly nothing against his own ex- 
press opinion that it is Paul’s. 

In other places he speaks directly to the same purpose; e. g. Serm. 55. 
5, Audisti apostolum exhortantem etc., quoting Heb. 12: 7 seq. Serm 82: 8, 
Audi ergo quid dicit apostolus etc., citing Heb. 13:4. Serm. 159. 1, ad 
Hebraoes dicit apostolus etc., quoting Heb. 12:4. Serm. 177. c. 11, Heb. 
13: 5 is cited next after 2 Cor. 8: 13, and both as the declarations of the 
same apostle. Epist. ad Rom. exposit. inchoat. § 19, de quo tune loque- 
batur apostolus....ut hoc significaverit apostolus, after quoting Heb. 
10: 26. 

Often he cites the epistle to the Hebrews as a part of Scripture; e. g. 
Enarv. in Ps. 130. § 12, quos reprehendit Scriptura, dicens etc., quoting 
Heb. 5: 12. Contra Mamim. Arian. IT. 25, aperuit Scriptura, ubi legitur 
ete. , quoting Heb. 2:9. 

Very often he cites the epistle in question as “epistola quae seribitur 
ad Hebraeos; epistola quae est ad Hebraeos; or epistola quae inseribitur 
ad Hebraeos.” 

These modes of citation, Bleek thinks (p. 225), shew that Augustine 
was uncertain about the author of our epistle. How this can well be af- 
firmed, in direct opposition to such plain, and explicit, and repeated de- 
clarations as those quoted above, Iam not able to see. And in respect 
to the manner of reference to our epistle, which is now in question, what 
more is needed to explain it, than that the epistle is anonymous, and that 
Augustine knew that some of the Latin churches doubted its authenticity, 
or at least, its Pauline origin? This was enough to lead him to refer- 
ences of such a nature as those before us; without his being at all doubt- 
ful, in his own mind, with regard to the question, Who was the author of 
the epistle ? 

That Augustine was acquainted with the fact, that some of the Latin 
churches denied our epistle to be Paul’s, is clear. But that he knew, (as 
it has sometimes been represented), that a great majority of these churches 
made such a denial, has never been proved, and so far as I know, seems 


116 § 16. TESTIMONY OF THE 


to be altogether incapable of proof. Indeed the exact reverse of this is 
certain, from his own words; “ Plures apostoli Pauli dicunt; quidam vero 
_negant,” De Civit. Dei. XVI. 22. In hisbook de Peccat. mer. et remiss. I. 
\27, he says of our epistle, “ quanquam nonnullis incerta sit ;? and in the 
| sta passage, he testifies, that “the authority of the oriental churches 
{moves him,” viz. to receive the epistle as canonical, because they admit 
}itassuch. In his Expos. inchoata Epist. ad Romanos, ὃ 11, he speaks of 
‘the usual salutatory address at the beginning of the epistle as being pur- 
posely omitted, in order to avoid offence to the Jews; “ unde,” continues 
he, “ nonnulli eam in canonem Scripturarum recipere timuerunt.” From 
this declaration two things are plain; viz. First, that some only (not the 
majority, plures, as he says in the passage above), feared to receive our 
epistle as canonical. Secondly, that the church at this time insisted on 
evidence of apostolical origin or sanction, in order to receive any book of 
the New Testament as truly canonical. 

Again, in his book de Fide, Spe, et Caritate, cap. 8, he says, “In epis- 
tola quippe ad Hebraeos, qua teste usi sunt illustres catholicae regulae 
defensores, fides esse dicta etc.” quoting Heb. 11: 1; which shews clear- 
ly, that in his view the more eminent men in the church admitted the 
canonical rank of this epistle. 

After all this testimony, Bleek represents Augustine as doublful in his 
own mind, about the origin and authority of our episile, p. 227 seq. Yet, 
in the very same paragraph, he represents Jerome and Augustine as be- 
ing the principal instruments in bringing the Latin churches to admit the 
epistle to the Hebrews as of apostolic origin and authority. How could 
this be, if their testimony is so doubtful and so feeble as Bleek has re- 
presented it to be? Would it not have served rather to increase than to 
dissipate the doubts in question ? 

But how this testimony can be fairly represented as doubtful, so far as 
the opinion of the two fathers in question is concerned, I am unable to 
perceive ; and the very effect attributed to it by Bleek himself, (and truly 
attributed), shews that the ancient churches of the West did not enter- 
tain the doubts about it which he does. 

it should be specially noted here also, (although I have once before 
had occasion to advert to the following facts), that the Council of Hippo, 
A. 10. 393; the third Council of Carthage, A. D. 397; and the fifth Coun- 
cil of Carthage, A. D. 419, (at all of which Augustine was present, and 
acted a conspicuous part); all decided in favour of the Pauline origin of 
the epistle to the Hebrews; the first in Can. 36; the second in Can. 47; 

\ and the third in Can. 99. The first two speak of thirteen epistles of Paul, 
and then add, ejusdem ad Hebraeos una ; the third, reckons fourteen. 

Bleek, who cites these testimonies, seems not to be aware that they 
have an important bearing on many passages in his book, where he argues 
against the Pauline origin of our epistle, because only thirteen of Paul’s 
epistles are named by one and another writer. From the Canons of the 
two first Councils named above, it is plain that thirteen epistles may be 
expressly attributed to Paul, without denying that he wrote another anon- 
ymous one. It is clear, that when thirteen are mentioned by these Coun- 
cils, they mean thirteen which bear the apostle’s name; and nothing 


WESTERN CHURCHES : CYPRIAN. 117 


more. The fifth Council at Carthage, which follows throughout the 
canonical catalogue of books set forth in the others named above, reckon 
fourteen epistles as Paul’s, without any circumlocution. 

One other remark should here be made. Bleek represents Jerome, 
who survived all these Councils, as being doubtful in his mind about the 
Pauline origin of the epistle to the Hebrews, because he knew that so 
great a majority of the churches in his time were against it. But do the 
decisions of these Councils favour such a representation as this? Rath- 
er, do they not directly contradict it, (at least in regard to Proconsu- 
lar Africa), and shew, that at least in the greater part of it, the epistle 
to the Hebrews was fully acknowledged as coming from the hand of Paul ? 

The Council of Hippo held in A. D. 393; the third Council at Car- 
thage, in A. D. 397; and the fifth Council at the same place, in A. D. 
419, (see above), all receiving our epistle as Paul’s, mention that an ap- 
peal to the church at Rome is to be made, in confirmation of the canon 
which they had admitted. What then did they expect from the church 
at Rome? Denial or confirmation? If the first, they would surely have 
proceeded doubtfully or hesitatingly in fixing their canon, so far as it re- 
gards our epistle ; but this they have not done. Of course, they expect- 
ed the latter. 

That they had reason to expect this, would appear pretty plain from 
the fact, that Innocent I., bishop of Rome, in an epistle written to Exsu- 
perius bishop of Toulouse (A. D. 405), at his request, and containing a 
catalogue of the canonical books, mentions among the rest, Pauli apostoli 
epistolae quatuordecem, Galland. Bib. Pat. VIII. p. 563. How can it be 
doubtful, then, what the Latin churches in Italy generally thought, at this 
period, concerning the epistle to the Hebrews ? 

Yet this same Innocent, (as Bleek concedes), in his other epistles does 
not quote the epistle to the Hebrews ; and this, he candidly allows, must 
have been accidental. Why not then concede thus much, in regard to 
many other of the Fathers, whom he represents as rejecting our epistle, 
because they do not quote it in their works now extant ? 

As the epistle to the Hebrews appears to have been doubted or disput- 
ed, to some extent, in the Latin churches of the third century, and down 
into the fourth, the question very naturally occurs, What afterwards wrought 
such a change in the views of the Romish churches ? To this Bleek answers, 
‘The authority and example of the oriental churches.’ But why did not 
these operate sooner on the churches of the West? Rome did not be- 
come more dependent in process of time upon the eastern churches, but 
less so. What wrought upon Hilary, and Lucifer, and Victorinus, and 
Ambrose, and Philaster, and Innocent? not to speak of Rufin, and Je- 
rome, and Augustine. It is difficult to answer this question, except by 
the suggestion, that the temporary causes, which had occasioned doubt or 
dispute about our epistle, being removed and forgotten in the lapse of 
time, the general and prevalent sentiment of the Christian churches at 
last regained its full influence in the West. At any rate, those who rep- 
resent the views of the ancient churches in general as so doubtful and 
uncertain with regard to the epistle to the Hebrews, as Eichhorn, Ber- 
tholdt, De Wette, Schulz, Bleek, and some others do, must find it a diffi- 


118 § 17. RESULT. 


cult problem indeed to solve, how the western churches could have come, 
so early and so generally as they did, to the opinion that the epistle to 
the Hebrews was of apostolical origin and authority. 

That the opinion of Innocent, bishop of Rome at the beginning of the 
fifth century, was extensively cherished at the same place, and generally 
in the West, near the close of this century, is evident from the fact, that 
in A. D. 494, Pope Galasius, at Rome, and a council of seventy bishops 
with him, included, in a catalogue of canonical books which they made, 
fourteen epistles of Paul, to whom epistola una ad Hebraeos is attributed. 
Bleek himself admits, that this is “ authentic testimony, not only for the 
opinion of the Romish churches at this period, but also for the other 
churches of the West,” p. 234. 

I have now traced the history of this epistle down to the fifth century, 
in the Egyptian, the Eastern, and the Western churches. Lower down it 
is altogether unnecessary to trace it; as all admit that it has had a general 
currency in the Christian churches every where, since that period ; al- 
though a few individuals are not wanting, who have doubted or denied 
its Pauline origin, 


§ 17. Result. 


We now come to the result of this investigation. In the Egyptian and 
Eastern churches, it is probable that there were, at a pretty early period, 
some few who had doubts whether Paul wrote the epistle to the Hebrews ; 
but no considerable person or party in this quarter is definitely known to 
us, who entertained these doubts; and it is manifest from Origen and 
Eusebius, that there was not among these churches any important oppo- 
sition to the general and constant tradition of the church that Paul did 
write it. Nota single witness of any considerable respectability is nam- 
ed, who has given his voice, in this part of the church, for the negative 
of the question which we are considering. What Jerome avers, appears 
to be strictly true, viz. ab ecclesiis Orientis et ab omnibus retro ecclesiasticis 
Graect sermonis scriptoribus, quast apostoli Pauli suscipi. 

In the Western churches, a diversity of opinion prevailed ; although 
the actual quantity of negative testimony that can be adduced, is not great. 
Yet the expressions of Jerome as cited above would seem to imply, that 
the predominant opinion of the western churches, in his times, was in the 
negative. In early times, we have seen that the case was different, when 
Clement of Rome wrote his epistle, and when the old Latin version was 
brought into circulation. What produced a change of opinion in the 
West, we are left to conjecture. ‘The scanty critical and literary records 
of those times, afford us no means of tracing the history of it. But this 
is far from being a singular case. Many other changes in the opinions of 
the churches have taken place, which we are, for a similar reason, as lit- 
tle able to trace with any certainty or satisfaction. 

Storr has endeavoured to shew, that Marcion occasioned this revolu- 
tion, when he came from the East to Rome, and brought with him a col- 
Jection of the sacred books, in which the epistle to the Hebrews was omit- 


§ 17. RESULT. 119 
ted. But it is very improbable, that an extravagant man, excommunicat- 
ed by the Roman church itself, should have produced such a revolution 
there in sentiment. Others have, with more probability, attributed it to 
the zealous disputes at Rome against the Montanist party ; whom the 
epistle to the Hebrews was supposed particularly to favour. ‘The Mon- 
tanists strenuously opposed the reception again into the bosom of the 
church, those persons who had so lapsed as to make defection from the 
Christian faith. The passages in Heb. VI. 4—8 and X. 26—31, at least 
seem strongly to favour the views which they maintained. ‘The church 
at Rome carried the dispute against the Montanists very high ; and Er- 
nesti, Spanheim, Wetstein, Hug, and other critics, have been led to believe, 
that the epistle to the Hebrews was ultimately rejected by them, because 
the Montanists relied on it as their main support. 

As a matter of fact, this cannot be established by direct historical evi- 
dence. But, in the absence of all direct testimony with respect to this 
subject, it must be allowed as being not improbable, that the epistle to the 
Hebrews may in this way have become obnoxious to the Romish church. 
Many such instances might be produced from the history of the church. 

-'The Ebionites, the Manicheans, the Alogi, and many ancient and mod- 
ern sects, have rejected some part of the canon of Scripture, because it — 
stood opposed to their party views. ‘The Apocalypse was rejected by 
many of the oriental churches, on account of their opposition to the Chil- 
iasts who made so much use of it. And who does not know, that Lu- 
ther himself rejected the epistle of James, because he viewed it as thwart- 
ing his favourite notions of justvication ; yea, that he went so far as to give 
it the appellation of epistola straminea? It cannot be at all strange, then, 
that the Romish church, exceedingly embittered by the dispute with the 
Montanists, should have gradually come to call in question the apostolic 
origin of our epistle; because it was, to their adversaries, a favourite 
source of appeal, and because (unlike Paul’s other epistles) it was anony- 
mous. 

That all even of the Montanists, however, admitted the apostolic ori- 
gin of our epistle, does not seem to be true. Tertullian, who took a ve- 
ry active part in favour of this sect, had, as we have already seen, doubts 
of such an origin ; or rather, he seems to ascribe it to Barnabas. 

But whatever might have been the cause that the epistle in question 
was doubted or rejected, by more or less of the churches in the West, 
the fact that it was so, cannot be reasonably disputed. A. majority of 
these churches, one would occasionally be led to think, from the latter 
half of the second century to near the latter half of the fourth, seems to 
have been generally opposed to receiving this epistle as Paul’s, or at least 
doubtful concerning it; although there were some among them who did 
receive It. 

It remains, then, to balance the testimony thus collected together and 
compared. The Earxy testimony is, of course, immeasurably the most im- 
portant. And there seems to me suflicient evidence, that this was as gen- 
eral and as uniform, for the first century after the apostolic age, as in 
respect to many other books of the New Testament; and more so, than 
in respect to several. I cannot hesitate to believe, that THE WEIGHT OF 


120 § 19. INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 
EVIDENCE FROM TRADITION IS ALTOGETHER PREPONDERANT, IN FAVOUR 
OF THE OPINION THAT PAUL WAS THE AUTHOR OF OUR EPISTLE. 


§ 18. Internal evidence that the epistle is Paul’s. 


We come then next to inquire, whether the internal condition of the 
epistle corresponds with and confirms this tradition. The evidence drawn 
from this may be divided into two kinds ; first, that which arises from cir- 
cumstances mentioned or adverted to in the epistle ; and secondly, that which 
arises from the style and manner of it. 


§ 19. Evidence that it was Paul’s, from circumstances mentioned or adverted 
to in the epistle. 


As our epistle no where exhibits the author’s name, we can appeal, for 
internal testimony respecting the author of it, only to accidental circum- 
stances which are developed in it. 

(1) The most striking one is that contained in 13 : 23, “‘ Know ye, that 
our brother Timothy is ἀπολελυμένον, with whom, if he come speedily, I 
will pay you a visit.” From the first acquaintance of 'Timothy with Paul, 
he had been his intimate friend and constant companion. That he was 
with Paul at Rome, during his imprisonment, we know for certainty ; 
because Paul has united him in the salutation prefixed to the epistles 
written to the Philippians, Colossians, and to Philemon, during his cap- 
tivity in that city. ‘Timothy was greatly beloved and confided in by Paul, 
as the manner in which he speaks of him, in several of his epistles, abun- 
dantly shews ; and Paul often calls him (as here) his brother. But the 
meaning of the word ἀπολελυμένον, as applied to Timothy, has been much 
contested; some rendering it set at liberty, i. e. from prison ; others, sent 
away, i.e. on some errand of Paul’s. Giving to ἀπολελυμένον the first 
meaning assigned it, viz. liberated, objectors have said, that ‘we have no 
account of Timothy’s having been imprisoned during the life of Paul, and 
therefore, the eccurrence of his imprisonment must have taken place after 
Paul’s death ; consequently the epistle must have been written by some 
other friend of Timothy, who calls him brother, in accordance with the 
usual style of the primitive Christians.’ 

Nothing, however, can be more unsafe or uncritical, than the supposi- 
tion that the Acts of the Apostles, or Paul’s epistles, give us a full and 
complete account of all which happened to the various persons who are 
named in them. E., g. Aristarchus is called by Paul, in Col. 4: 10, his 
fellow prisoner ; as is Epaphras, in Philem. v. 23 ; but where is the histo- 
ry of their imprisonment? The supposition by Bertholdt, that another 
Timothy, different from him who is so often mentioned in the sacred 
records, may be meant here, is doubtless a possible one; but is it a proba- 
ble one? Have we any kind of ecclesiastical voucher, that there was 
another Timothy who distinguished himself in the apostolic age? It is 
possible that one Virgil wrote the Eneid, and another the Georgics ; yet 


§ 19. INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 121 


who thinks it to be probable ὃ But if this be insufficient, Bertholdt alleges 
that a different person from Paul may have been the intimate friend and 
travelling companion of Timothy, while Paul was imprisoned at Rome ; 
and that the passage we are considering, may have come from him. 
Kichhorn thinks it must have been written by such a friend of Timothy, 
after the death of Paul; as. during his life Timothy closely adhered to 
this apostle. All this no doubt, is possible ; and a great many other hy- 
potheses, which could be easily made, present no impossibility. But are 
they probable? And is not the language which we are considering, more 
appropriate to the known relation of Paul and Timothy, than to the rela- 
tion with ‘Timothy, of any other person during that period concerning 
whom we have any knowledge? The spontaneous feeling of Christian 
readers, in all ages, has fully answered this question. 

But what was the imprisonment, which is adverted to by the word 
ἀπολελυμένον To suppose with Schmidt (Hist. Antiq. Canon.), and 
many others, that it was an imprisonment at Rome with Paul, is evident- 
ly preposterous ; for how, if Timothy were already at Rome, could Paul, 
or any one else there say, ἐγ he come or return speedily 3 Must not ‘Tim- 
othy have been absent, when this was said? If Timothy had been im- 
prisoned abroad, and was then liberated (ἀπολελυμένον), would he not have 
been the immediate bearer of the news himself to the apostle? I do not 
allege this as an actual and certain fact, for possibly there may have been 
circumstances to prevent it. But then it is not in itself very probable, 
that Paul, in confinement at Rome, would obtain information about Tim- 
othy, (who if absent was doubtless among some of the churches where 
Paul had been), any sooner than those to whom our epistle was written ; 
and who, as it appears from the manner in which Paul speaks of him to 
them, had a special regard for him. 

Why, moreover, raise up all these difficulties in order to maintain an in- 
terpretation of ἀπολελυμένον which accords no better with the usus loquendi 
of the sacred or classical writers, than the rendering dismissed or sent 
away 2 a sense 60 exactly consentaneous with the relation between Paul 
and Timothy. 

Bleek, in his recent work (pp. 275 seq.), has virtually called this in 
question, however, and endeavoured to shew that the word ἀπολελυμένον 
is not susceptible of the sense which [I have here given to it ; and has re- 
peated the same objections in his Review of the first edition of this work, 
p. 14. His arguments are in substance these, viz. that if Timothy was 
sent away by the apostle, then the words tx’ ἐμοῦ, or ax’ ἐμοῦ, or some 
equivalent expression, would have been added. He suggests also, that if 
ἀπολελυμένον means deputed, sent away, then the place to which, and the 
errand on which, he was sent, must have been added by the writer. He 
likewise avers, that ἀπολύω does not mean to depute, and cannot mean so, 
unless circumstances are added to give it such a sense. Hence he con- 
cludes, that ἀπολελυμένον must mean dismissed or liberated from impris- 
onment, or something of such a nature, i. 6, from some circumstances of 
this kind which were well known to those whom the writer of the epistle 


to the Hebrews addressed, 
. . . . . 2 [4 . 
An examination, however, of every instance in which ἀπολύω is em- 


122 § 19. INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 


ployed in the New Testament, has satisfied me that these allegations are 
unsupported by the usus loquendi of the sacred writers. “Aodtw, is used 
69 times; and all of these instances, (except the one in Heb. 13: 23), are 
in the Gospels and in the Acts of the Apostles. In 20 cases it is employ- 
ed to designate divorce of married parties; in 10, the sending away or 
dismissing an assembly or company of men, i. 6. sending them to their 
homes, or to their proper business ; in 5 cases it designates the dismission 
of individuals in the same way; in 23 cases, it denotes liberating from a 
state of duress or detention by force, on account of crimes either real or 
supposed ; once it signifies dismissal from the present life, viz. in Luke 
2:19; once it means simply, to depart, to go away, viz. in Acts 28: 25; 
and twice it seems to mean, to absolve from obligations to debt, or ser- 
vice, or something of the like nature, viz. Luke 6:37. Yet in all these 
62 cases, it is never once followed by a noun denoting either the person by 
whom the dismissal ete. is made, or the place to which the persons dis- 
missed are sent, or the object on account of which they are dismissed. 
In three cases only are the persons or things designated, from whom or 
which one is dismissed or sent away, viz. in Luke 13: 12, ἀπολέλυσαι τῆς 
ἀσϑενείας cov; Luke 16: 18, ἀπολελυμένην ἀπὸ ἀνδρὸς x. τ. 4. ; and Acts 
15: 23, ἀπελύϑησαν, ... ἀπὸ τῶν ἀδελφῶν πρὸς τοῦς ἀποστόλους. Does 
this accord with the views of this word which are given by Bleek ? Here 
are a great many kinds of sending away or dismissing, and yet the object 
for which or on account of which this is done, is not designated at all in 
hardly any of them. We have only three cases in all, in which the persons 
or thing from or by whom or which the dismissal is made, are designated 5 
and one (Mark. 8: 3) which expresses the place to which they are ἀπολε- 
λυμένοι. All this serves to render it clear, that ἀπολύω is used as a 
constructio praegnans, and that the object for which, place to which ete., 
may be expressed or omitted, just as the writer pleases; but that it is 
usually omitted, where it can be gathered from the context. 

As to the affirmation of Bleek, that ἀπολύω never means to depute, to 
send away on business, ete., it is sufficient to refer to Acts 13: 3, where the 
προφῆται καὶ διδάσκαλοι at Antioch, having ordained Saul and Barnabas, 
ἀπέλυσαν αὐτούς, viz. to preach the gospel to the Gentiles ; which last how- 
ever is not expressed, but only to be gathered from the context. In Acts 
13: 30 also, ἀπολυϑέντες is applied to the messengers sent from the 
church at Jerusalem to that of Antioch ; and that it isof the same meaning 
here with πέμπω, is clear, for those whom it pleased the church at Jeru- 
salem πέμψαι εἰς ᾿Αντιόχειαν (v. 22), are here said to be ἀπολυϑέντες. So 
again, the brethren sent back from Antioch to Jerusalem, ἀπελύϑησαν .... 
πρὸς τοὺς ἀποστόλους, ,1. 6. to carry back the tidings to them from Antioch. 

Thus much for the usus loquendi of the word, which must be made out 
not by a priori reasoning, but by facts. But Bleek further alleges, that 
there is no intimation in Heb. 13: 23, either from the language or the cir- 
cumstances mentioned, that Timothy was in any way under the direction 
of the writer, or employed in the way of performing subordinate offices 
for him. All which can be meant, he thinks, is, that ‘ Timothy had been 
imprisoned somewhere, that he was now at liberty, that he was going to 
Jerusalem, and that in his way thither he would visit the writer, and that 


§ 19. INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 123 


if he should speedily come, the writer would go in company with him to 
Jerusalem,’ 

If this be so, then we must take it for granted, that the Hebrews ad- 
dressed knew of Timothy’s intention to visit them ; and also of his inten- 
tion to do this by journeying through the place where the writer of the 
letter was residing ; for all this the manner of the writer’s communication 
would necessarily imply. But if all this were true, what need could 
there be, that the writer should inform the Hebrews, that 'Timothy was 
set at liberty? And what evidence is there, that Timothy had been im- 
prisoned where the writer would have any earlier knowledge of his lib- 
eration than the Hebrews would? According to Bleek’s interpretation, 
both parties must have fully and definitely known of Timothy’s intended 
journey to Jerusalem; so there was communication between 'Timothy 
and both parties. In this case we may suppose, of course, that both 
would know of his liberation. 

But why does not the writer add, from what, or by whom, Timothy was 
liberated ? Bleek must say, if he would be consistent, ‘ Because the He- 
brews knew where he had been incarcerated ; and this was therefore un- 
necessary. But on the other hand, I ask also, Did not the Hebrews 
know that Timothy was the constant companion and messenger of Paul ? 
And if so, what need, when he speaks of Timothy as ἀπολελυμένον, of 
adding by whom 2 He might have said where, indeed ; and he might al- 
80, for good reasons, choose to omit this; so that all objection to the sense 
of ἀπολελυμένον as meaning sent away, on such a ground as this, falls to the 
ground upon examination and comparison with usage. 

I remark still farther, that the definite manner in which the writer 
speaks of Timothy, of his being sent away, and of the expectation which 
he had of his speedy return, and of the relation to himself implied in the 
whole, does serve to shew, and has by a great majority of the Christian 
churches been considered as shewing, some kind of subordination or spe- 
cial connection between the writer of our epistle and Timothy. At all 
events, nothing can be made out against this from philological considera- 
tions. 

Let me now add to this investigation, (which has been so long pro- 
tracted because the subject is so much controverted), a view of the cir- 
cumstances of Paul, near the close of his captivity at Rome, which may 
serve to confirm the opinion defended above, that Paul was the writer of 
our epistle. 

In Philip. 2: 19, (this epistle was written while Paul was a prisoner at 
Rome), the apostle speaks of sending Timothy to them shortly, so soon as 
he should see how it would go with him in respect to being liberated from 
prison, 2: 23; at the same time expressing a hope, that he should himself 
come to them shortly, v. 94, What then is more natural than the suppo- 
sition, that he did send Timothy to them; and that, during his absence, 
Paul wrote the epistle to the Hebrews, in which he tells them that Timo- 
thy was sent away, and intimates that he is now assured of being speedily 
set at liberty, and also that he intends to pay them a visit in company with 
Timothy, if he should shortly return, viz. from Philippi? Many facts are 
believed by Bertholdt and all other critics, which have less of verisimili- 


124 § 19. INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 
tude to support them than this. Indeed one cannot well see, how mere 
circumstantial evidence could be better adapted to make the impression of 
probability than this. 

I do not feel the weight of the objection made by alleging that Timothy 
was unknown to the church, in Palestine, and that they could have no 
special interest with respect to the information in question. For, first, 
Timothy was the well known and beloved companion of Paul, in all his 
journeyings during his later years, and must have been known as such, 
wherever Paul was known. Next, there can be no reasonable question, 
that he was with Paul during his last visit to Jerusalem, previously to the 
apostle’s captivity for two years at Cesarea. Is there any probability, even 
if he were not with Paul during his journey to Jerusalem, that he did not 
frequently visit him in his afflictions? And would not the church at 
Cesarea, therefore, be well acquainted with him? Specially so, as 'Tim- 
othy would be the more acceptable to the Palestine Jewish Christians, 
on account of his having received the rite of circumcision after he be- 
came a convert to Christianity. 

Now as all these circumstances do plainly accord with Paul’s situation, 
while a prisoner at Rome ; with his relation ‘to Timothy; and with the 
manner in which he employed him; and as we have not a syllable of 
testimony that they are applicable to any other person ; I do not see how 
we can be justified, in denying that the evidence deducible from them is 
sufficient to render it quite probable, that Paul was the author of our 
epistle. 

(2) In Heb. 13: 18, 19, the writer asks the prayers of those whom he 
addressed, that he might speedily be restored to them ; and in Heb. 13: 23, 
he expresses a confident expectation of “speedily paying them a visit.” 
From these passages it is clear, that the writer was then in a state of 
imprisonment ; and also, that he was assured of a speedy liberation, which 
would enable him to pay the visit that he had encouraged them to hope 
for. 

Compare this now with the situation of Paul at Rome, during the latter 
part of his imprisonment there. In his epistle to the Philippians, (written 
during that period), he expresses his entire confidence that his life will be 
prolonged, so that he shall yet promote their religious profit and Joy 5 
τοῦτο πεποιϑὼς οἶδα, ὅτι μενῶ καὶ συμπαραμενῶ πασὶν ὑμῖν προκοπὴν καὶ 
χαρὰν τῆς πίστεως, Phil. 1:25. Again, in Phil. 2: 24 he says, πέποιϑα δὲ 
ἐν Κυρίῳ, ὅτι καὶ αὐτὸς ταχέως ἐλεύσομαι, I trust in the Lord that I myself 
shall speedily come [to you]. In the epistle to Philemon (also written 
during the same imprisonment), he says, ἐλπίζω γὰρ or διὰ τῶν προσευχῶν 

ὑμῶν χαρισϑήσομαιν ὑμῖν, for I hope that by your prayers I shall be restored 
to you, v. 22. So confident was Paul of this, that he bids Philemon pre- 
pare lodgings for him, ἐτοίμαζέ μοι ξενίαν, v. 22, 

It appears very plainly, then, from these passages, that the writer had a 
satisfactory assurance in his mind of being speedily set at liberty ; although, 
it is probable, a formal declaration of his acquittal had not yet been made 
by the Roman emperor. This last conclusion I gather from Phil. 2: 28, 
where Paul declares to the church whom he is addressing, “that he shall 
send Timothy to them immediately, ws ἂν ἀπίδω τὰ περὶ ἐμέ, whenever ἢ 


§19. INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 125 


- shall know how my affairs issue.” By this it appears, that he was in daily 
expectation of receiving official notice of the determination of the emperor 
in respect to his case, but that he had not yet received it. That he had 
private information, however, of the way in which his case was likely to 
terminate, and information which pretty fully satisfied his mind, is evident 
from the manner in which he speaks in the passages quoted above, of his 
intended visit to the Philippians and to Philemon. 

Supposing now, as soon as intimation was made by the Roman emperor 
that Paul would be set at liberty, that intelligence respecting it was imme- 
diately communicated to the apostle by those of Cesar’s household (Phil. 4: 
22), who were his Christian friends; supposing that, agreeably to his 
promise made to the Philippians (2: 23), he then immediately sent away 
Timothy to them; and supposing still further, (which surely cannot be 
regarded as improbable), that there was some little delay in formally 
making out his sentence of acquittal and carrying it into execution by 
actually liberating him from prison; then how obviously easy and natural 
is the expression in Heb. 13: 23, “Know that our brother Timothy is 
sent away ; with whom, if he speedily return, I shall pay you a visit ?” 
On the supposition that the close of the epistle to the Hebrews was written 
at this juncture of time, nothing can be more probable, than that the prom- 
ised mission of Timothy, adverted to in Phil. 2: 23, is referred to in Heb. 
13: 23; and consequently that ἀπολελυμένον here means sent away, dis- 
missed, (as all must acknowledge it may mean), and not liberated or set at 
liberty. 

The circumstances adverted to or implied in Heb. 13: 23. Phil. 2: 23, 
and Philem. v. 22, have other correspondencies which deserve particular 
notice. In the two latter passages, it is plain that the writer expects his 
liberty, and means to send away ‘Timothy to Philippi. In the former, he 
is assured of his liberty, and only waits for the return of Timothy, in or- 
der that he may set out to visit the Hebrews whom he had been address- 
ing. Incase Timothy did not return speedily (τάχιον), it is plainly implied 
in Heb. 13: 23 that the writer meant to set out on his journey without 
him. There was then some uncertainty in his mind, respecting the 
time when Timothy would return. How well all this accords with the 
journey of Timothy to a place so remote from Rome as Philippi, cannot 
fail to strike the mind of every considerate reader. 

Now laying aside all favoritism for any previous opinions respecting 
our epistle, can it be reasonably doubted, that here is a concurrence of 
circumstances so striking as to render it highly probable that Paul wrote 
it? More especially so, when we consider that the epistle must have 
been written, about the same period of time when these circumstances 
happened ; for it proffers internal evidence of being written before the 
destruction of Jerusalem ; and yet written so late, that the period when 
the Hebrews were first,converted to Christianity is adverted to as being 
already a considerable time before, Heb. 5: 12, and is called τὰς πρότερον 
ἡμέρας, 10:32. Now the imprisonment of Paul at Rome happened 
probably A. D. 62 or 63, which was some thirty years after the gospel had 
begun to be preached abroad ; and the close of that imprisonment, in case 
it continued about two years, Acts 28: 30, was about five years before the 
destruction of Jerusalem. 


126 § 19. INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 


Taking all these circumstances together, it must be acknowledged that 
there is an extraordinary concurrence of them, which cannot but serve 
much to increase the probability that our epistle was written by Paul, near 
the close of his liberation at Rome. 

The objections which Bertholdt makes against the arguments just pre- 
sented, do not seem to be weighty. ‘ Would Paul, he asks, “promise to 
revisit Palestine, when the people of that country had just sent him into 
captivity at Rome? <A very improbable circumstance indeed !” 

But a nearer consideration of the circumstances attending Paul’s case, 
will remove the appearance of any great improbability. For, first, Paul 
had been kept a prisoner at Cesarea, two years before his removal 
to Rome, Acts 24 : 25—27; and at Rome he lived two years more in a 
similar condition, Acts 28:30. These, with the time occupied by his 
going to Rome and returning from it, would make nearly a five years’ in- 
terval between his leaving Palestine and revisiting it. Might not some of 
his fiercest persecutors have died during this period ? Or might they not 
have laid aside their furious zeal ? 

But, in the next place, supposing our epistle to have been sent to the 
church at Cesarea, where Paul had been treated with so much kindness 
during his imprisonment; could there have been any fear in his mind, 
with respect to paying them a visit? And even if we suppose that Ce- 
sarea was not the place to which the letter was directed, but that it was 
sent to the Christians at Jerusalem; yet the objection brought forward 
by Bertholdt will not be of much validity. Paul was not to be deterred 
from going to Jerusalem, by the prospect of persecution. From the time 
when he first made his appearance there, after his conversion, the Jews 
had always showed a bitter enmity against him and persecuted him. Yet 
this did not deter him from going, again and again, to that city. And 
why should it now deter him any more than formerly ? 

Besides, he was now liberated from the accusations of the Jews, by the 
sentence of the emperor himself. Would they venture to do again the 
very thing which the court of Rome had decided to be unlawful ? Might 
not Paul well expect, with the decision of the emperor in his hand, to find 
his personal liberty for the future respected ? 

“But,” says Bertholdt, “we have no account that Paul paid a visit to 
Palestine after his liberation.” 

True. But what argument this can furnish against the probability that 
he did pay such a visit, 1 do not perceive. Bertholdt himself, in the very 
paragraph which contains this objection, says, “who does not know, that 
the accounts of what befel the apostles and primitive teachers of Chris- 
tianity are very incomplete >” Every one knows, that Luke breaks off 
the history of Paul with the account of his imprisonment at Rome. Has 
any writer given us a well authenticated supplement to this? And can 
the want of any history of Paul, after the period of his imprisonment at 
Rome, be a proof that he never travelled to any particular place after this, 
or that he did not live and preach there? Surely this cannot be urged 
with any shew of propriety. 

Bleek (p. 283) has suggested, that Heb. 13: 18, 19 contains no certain 
intimation that the writer was in a state of dwress when he wrote the epis- 


§ 19. INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 127 


tle to the Hebrews. But what then can be the probable meaning of 
ἀποκατασταϑῶ The verb ἀποκατίστημι means to restore a thing to its 
former state or condition, which has become diseased, injured, or is in a 
ruinous state. It is applied tq designate the restoring of those who labour 
under diseases, to a state of soundness, e.g. Matt. 12: 13. Mark 3: 5. 8: 
25. Luke 6: 10. It also designates the restoration of the lapsed Jewish 
commonwealth to prosperity and splendour, e.g. Matt. 17:11. Mark 9: 
12. Acts 1:6. In the passage before us, what can ἀποκατασταϑῶ ὑμῖν 
mean, unless it be, that the writer should be freed from the state of duress 
in which he was, and thus be able to pay them a visit? And he expects 
this τάχιον, the sooner, should they offer up their supplications for him, as 
he had requested them to do. ᾿“ποκατασταϑῦ alone might signify deliv- 
erance from any state whatever of trouble or perplexity ; but what τάχιον 
ἀποχασταϑῶ ὑμῖν can mean, unless it means what I have above sup- 
posed, it would be difficult, I believe, to shew. The very use of the word 
ἀποχατασϑῶ shews the present straitened and distressed condition of the 
writer; and the use of ὑμῖν shews, that this condition was of such a na- 
ture as then deprived him of the liberty of paying a visit to the Hebrews. 

I add only, that analogy would lead us to suppose that Paul, when lib- 
erated, would go to Palestine, and then to the other churches in Asia Mi- 
nor. Such was the general course of his travels; see Acts 18: 22, seq. 
It is altogether consonant, then, with the usage of Paul, to suppose that he 
would visit the church at Palestine, after his imprisonment at Rome; and 
therefore natural to suppose, that Heb. 13: 23 refers to such an event. 

(3) 1f the reading in Heb. 10: 34, “for ye had compassion on my bonds 
(τοῖς δεσμοῖς μου), be correct, it is another argument that Paul is the au- 
thor of our epistle ; for his bonds in Palestine, whither the letter was sent, 
were well known. That he obtained compassion there, particularly during 
his two years’ abode at Cesarea, will not be questioned. But as the read- 
ing δεσμοῖς μου is controverted, and δεσμίοις (the prisoners) is preferred by 
some good critics, I do not think proper to urge this argument ; although 
the evidence is about equally in favour of δεσμοῖς μου, δεσμοῖς, and 
δεσμίοις. 

(4) ΤΟ salutation in Heb. 13: 24, agrees with the supposition that Paul 
wrote this epistle; ἀσπάζονται ὑμᾶς ot ἀπὸ τῆς ᾿Ιταλίας. Paul writing 
from Rome, which had communication of course with all parts of Italy, 
and with the Italian churches, more or less of whose members we may 
well suppose to have been often at Rome, may very naturally be supposed 
to have sent such a salutation. Indeed, the circumstances render this 
quite probable. 

The objections made against this, do not strike me as forcible. Eich- 
horn alleges, that οὗ ἀπὸ τῆς Ιταλίας must mean, people who had come from 
Italy, i.e. who had left Italy, and were locally out of it, when the writer 
sent a salutation from them. Consequently, he concludes, the writer 
of the epistle could not have been Paul, during his imprisonment at 
Rome. 

Bleek has recently repeated for substance the same objections, p. 281 
seq., alleging that the writer must of necessity be supposed to be out of 
Italy, and most probably those also whom he calls οὗ ἀπὸ Itadtac. He 


198 § 19. INTERNAL ἘΥΕΡΕΝΟΒ. 


finds some difficulty, indeed, in making this latter part out ; but on the 
whole, he thinks we may understand it of Christians who had fled from 
Italy in the time of Nero’s persecution. 

In his Review of the first edition of my work, p. 14, he has repeated 
his objections still more confidently, alleging that the very examples, 
produced by me to illustrate the meaning which I give to ot ἀπό, do in 
fact prove the contrary; and this because when οὗ ἀπό is applied to per- 
sons, it necessarily implies that they are out of the place which is desig- 
nated by the word that follows ἀπό ; or that the writer himself is not in 
that place. 

In opposition to all this J make the appeal (the only one which can be 
made) to usage, and ask that the following instances may be duly exam- 
ined. I remark, 

(1) That οὗ ἀπό is manifestly employed, in some cases, as a mere equiy- 
alent for οὗ ἐκ, i. e. as a periphrasis or an expression which in sense is a 
mere adjective. When the preposition ἀπό is followed by a noun, it is 
often equivalent also to our English words belonging to, pertaining to, 
ete. As examples of both these usages, we may take Acts 12: 1, Herod 
vexed some τῶν ἀπὸ τῆς éxxdnotac, of those who belonged to the church; Acts 

15:5, there arose some τῶν ὑπὸ τῆς αἱρέσεως THY Φαρισαίων, of those who be- 
loened to the sect of the Pharisees; Luke 1: 2, of ax’ ἀρχῆς αὐτόπται, orig- 
inal eye-witnesses ; Luke 19: 99, and some of the Pharisees ἀπὸ tov ὕχλου, 
belonging to the multitude, which multitude were then present and sur- 
rounded Jesus; Acts 27: 44, and some by means of those, things τῶν ἀπὸ 
τοῦ πλοίου, which belonged fo the ship ; Heb. 12: 20, how much more shall 
we [not escape], if we turn away from τὸν ἀπ΄ οὐρανῶν, the heavenly [ad- 
monisher]. 

These may suffice to shew the nature of the expression of ἀπὸ... and 
to prove beyond all doubt, that it is not unfrequently employed in the 
same way as οὗ ἔκ, i. 6. in the manner of an adjective ; for so οὗ é%.... 15 
not unfrequently used, 6. g. οὗ ἐκ ἐρεϑείας, the contentious ; ot ἐκ γόμου, 
sticklers for the law; τὸ ἐξ οὐρανοῦ, heavenly ; ot ἐκ τῆς Καίσαρος οἰκίας, 
Caesar’s domestics, ete. 

We have now to apply the phrase οἵ ἀπὸ . .. to place, and to see whether 
it may here retain the sense of pertaining to, belonging to, and this without 
any necessary implication that the persons spoken of are out of such 
place, or without any reference at all to the writer as to what place he is 
in, whether in the one named, or in some other. 

John 11: 1, Now a certain man was sick, “]άζαρος ἀπὸ τῆς Βηϑάνιας ; 
and yet we know with certainty from the context, that Lazarus was sick 
and died at his own home, in this very Bethany ; and that the narration 
has no reference at all to the place of the writer, is equally certain. Acts 
10 : 23, certain brethren τῶν ἀπὸ Ιόππης συνῆλθον αὐτῷ [τῷ Πέτρῳ]; and 
on the morrow they came to Cesarea. Now here the men τῶν ἀπὸ Ιόππης, 
set out in company with Peter, and they and Peter both are in Joppa 
when συνῆλϑον they set out on their journey in company, and it is only on 
the next day after this, that we find them at another place. Acts 17: 13, 
now when οἵ ἀπὸ τὴς Θεσσαλονίκης ᾿Ιουδοαῖοι knew that in Berea etc.... 
they came thither, stirring up the populace. Bleek has replied to this ex- 


δ 19. INTERNAL EVIDENGE. 129 


ample, (which was produced in the first edition of my siandlas by alleg- 
ing that the writer has reference in his own mind, when he says ot ἀπὸ 
Θεσσαλονίχης ᾿Ιουδαῖοι, to the subsequent coming of these persons to Berea, 
and their demeanor there, Review p. 14. But it would be rather a sin- 
gular reason for calling men οὗ ἀπὸ .... because, in the subsequent course 
of narration, we might have occasion to speak of their being or acting in 
some other place besides that named in connection with ἀπό. Besides; 
nothing can be plainer than that in the phrase of ἀπὸ τῆς Θεσσαλονίκης 
᾿Ιουδαῖοι, ἀπὸ τῆς Θεσσαλονίκης is by the laws of grammatical construction 
a mere adjective in substance. Bleek does not need to be told that cir- 
cumstances of this nature thrown in between the article and the noun to 
which it belongs, are adjectives in their very nature, i. e. by the laws and 
usages of the Greek language; so that here is a case definitely speaking 
what was claimed for it in the first edition of the present work. If the wri- 
ter had meant to express the idea for which Bleek contends, he would of 
course have said, ὡς δὲ é ἔγνωσαν Ob ᾿Ιουδαῖοι, ἤλϑον ἀπὸ τῆς Θεσσαλονίκης 
καχεῖ, σαλεύοντες.. κ᾿ τ. Δ. Acts 21:16, συνῆλϑον δὲ καὶ τῶν μαϑητῶν ὦ απο 
Καισαρείας σὺν ἡμῖν, % τ. 4.,1. €. some of the Christian brethren belonging 
to Cesarea, set out from that place in company with Paul and his friends, 
or accompanied them; a case of the same nature with that in Acts 10: 

23 noted above. Here there is surely no reference to the writer as being 
out of Cesarea, nor to the tay μαϑητῶν & ἀπὸ ths Καισαρείας as being out 
of Cesarea, but to the simple fact, that some of the Cesareans accom- 
panied Paul and his friends on their journey to Jerusalem. 

After exhibiting | these illustrations of the principle in question concern- 
ing the use of of ἀπὸ. «... it will be sufficient merely to refer to other 
examples of the like usage. Matt. 27: 57, ’Iwong ἀπὸ Agimadtoias, Joseph 
the Arimathean, i. e. J ἘΞ belonging by birth or origin to Arimathea ; ; 
surely not Joseph who had lately come from that place, “for he was εὔσχή- 
μων βουλευτής, one of the honourable Sankedrim at Jerusalem ; comp. the 
same expression in Mark 15: 43. Luke 23:51. John 19:38. So the 
expression Jesus .... ὃ ἀπὸ Ναζαρέτ, is plainly the same as Jesus 6 ὧν ἀπὸ 
Nalugér, i. e. who helongs there, Jesus the Nazarene ; comp. Acts 10: 38. 
John 1:46. So ἀπὸ Pahoa a Cicilian, Acts 23: 34; τινὲς δὲ ἀπὸ τῆς 
᾿Ασίας ᾿Ιουδαῖοι, certain Asiatic Jews, Acts 24:18; (the position of τινὲς 
ἀπὸ x. τ. λ. makes this meaning certain again). Mark 3: 7, πολὺ πλῆϑος 
ἀπὸ Γαλιλαίας followed him [Jesus]; yet Jesus was now in Galilee, and 
did not leave here when the multitudes in question followed him. John 
1: 45, Philip ἀπὸ ByFoutde, i. 6. the Bethsaidan, a native of Bethsaida ; 
comp. John 12: 21. John 21: 2, Nathaniel 6 ἀπὸ Kava, a native of Cones 
Matt. 4 : 25, great multitudes ἀπὸ Ταλιλαίας followed Jesus, etc.; yet both 
he and they were in Galilee during all the time of their following him. 
Matt. 15:1, οὗ ἀπὸ “Ιεροσολύμων γραμματεῖς, from the position of the 
words, must mean simply the Jerusalem scribes, i.e. scribes who belonged 
to Jerusalem. 

Other instances might easily be added; but I apprehend that Bleek 
himself will candidly admit that no more are necessary. 

From all this it is plain enough, then, that οὗ ἀπὸ ᾿Ιταλίας means neith- 
er more nor less than the Italians, i. e. those who belonged to the country 

Vi 


133 § 19. INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 


of Italy ; and this, without at all determining whether the writer, or they, 
or both, were out of Italy, at the time when he wrote. 

Had the Greek Concordance been consulted, the critics who have oc- 
easioned this long philological disquisition, would probably have seen, 
that where ἀπό is designed to express a local removing or distance, such 
verbs as ἔρχομαι, διαγείρω, ἀναβαίνω, παρέρχομαι, ἀποχωρέω, χκαταβαίνω, 
ἀπέχω, %. τ. λ. are employed before it, or along with it. 

I must continue, then, to entertain my former views respecting οὗ ἀπὸ 
τῆς [ταλίας, until 1 find some better reason to change them than I have 
yet been able to find. Nay, I may even venture to call in question wheth- 
er it is.agreeable to the usus loquendi of the Greek, to employ ot amo... . 
in order to designate persons as those who have gone from one place to 
another, unless some verb is joined with the phrase which expresses the 
action of going etc. ; compare for example, Acts 18: 2. Matt. 3:7. 3: 19, 
16. 7: 23..8 21,11,'84..12: 43. 13:4. 14: 29. 1759; 18. 2930. (Mark 
1:9, 10; 42. 3:22. 5: 35 ete. ete. ᾿ 

In reference, however, to the whole phrase in question, it is asked, 
‘How came Italians to salute a church in Palestine? If Paul wrote our 
epistle at Rome, why did he not say, ἀσπάζονται ὑμᾶς οἱ ἀπὸ “Pong? 
What acquaintance had the Romans with the church at Palestine ? 

This objection, however, will not bear examination. ‘The Romans 
surely were Italians ; and it is a matter of indifference, whether the wri- 
ter at Rome said, οὗ ἀπὸ τῆς ἹῬώμης, or 06 ἀπὸ τῆς ᾿Ιταλίας, if he meant to 
send only the salutation of Christians who resided at Rome. But is it at 
all probable that there were not Christians often at Rome from various 
parts of Italy, who were acquainted with Paul, and who cherished a 
friendly interest for the church whom he was addressing? If these also, 
as well as the Romans, wished to send the expression of their friendly 
regards to the Hebrews, what other phraseology could Paul have adopt- 
ed, that would be more appropriate than οὗ ἀπὸ τῆς ᾿Ιταλίας, which would 
embrace Christians in general who lived in the country where the wri- 
ter was ? 

Then why should this be thought so strange, when an example of the 
very saine nature may be produced from the acknowledged writings of 
Paul? This apostle, writing from Ephesus (1 Cor. 16: 8) to the church 
at Corinth, says, The churches of Asia salute you, 16:19. May not the 
same questions be urged here, which objectors urge in the case above ? 
May we not ask, How could the Asiatics be personally known to the 
Corinthians? And why should Paul speak of the churches of Asia, and 
not of that at Ephesus? Plainly the reason of this was, that Christians 
from different parts of Asia Minor (which is here meant), were collected 
together in Ephesus its capital, where they had intercourse with Paul, 
and knew that he was addressing the Corinthians, and desired an expres- 
sion of their brotherly affection toward them. What is more common, 
every day, than for single individuals, or societies of men, who have 
never had any personal intercourse together, to exchange friendly saluta- 
tions? Could not Paul as well send the salutations of οὗ ἀπὸ τῆς Ιταλίας, 
as of the ἐκκλησίαι τῆς ᾿Ασίας 

Such are the various circumstances adverted to in our epistle, which 


§ 20. INTERNAL. EVIDENCE. 131 


serve to render it probable that Paul was the author of it. From its na- 
ture this evidence is indirect ; but evidence of such a kind is, not unfre- 
quently, as convincing as that which appears to be more direct. The 
prefixing or suflixing a writer’s name to an epistle, is a more easy and 
obvious method of interpolation, than the insertion of minute circum- 
stances which imply a very intimate acquaintance with a writer’s condi- 
tion and circumstances. 

Will any one undertake to show, that the circumstances which are 
brought into view above, may be more probably attached to some other 
person than to Paul? If not, then the probability from them is in favour 
of Paul as the author of our epistle. 


§ 20. Evidence that the epistle is Paul’s, from a similarity of sentiment ; and 
also from the form, method, style, and diction of the composition. 


The preceding section treated of the facts or external circumstances, to 
which various passages of our epistle adverts ; and what is gathered from 
these may be called, in a certain respect, a kind of external evidence. 
But a comparison of our epistle with the other acknowledged writings of 
Paul, remains yet to be made. This is a species of evidence, on which 
some have relied with great confidence ; and it is remarkable that it has 
been appealed to with equal confidence, both by those who defend and by 
those who assail the Pauline origin of the epistle to the Hebrews. Even 
in very ancient times, so early as the third century, the same occurrence 
took place. One might, perhaps, naturally enough conclude from. this, 
that no very satisfactory evidence on either side’ can be obtained; but 
that the epistle contains things to which both parties may appeal, with 
some tolerable show of reason. Before coming however to such a con- 
clusion, we ought at least to make a thorough investigation, and to weigh 
well all the arguments which are adduced to support the respective opin- 
ions to which 1 allude. 

A comparison between our epistle and the acknowledged letters of 
Paul, may have respect to the doctrines taught in both; or to the form 
and method, as well as the style and diction, of the epistle. When these 
shall have passed in review before us, the allegations with regard to a 
dissimilarity between the epistle to the Hebrews and other epistles of 
Paul, may be further discussed. 


ὁ 21. Similarity of pocrrines between the epistle to the Hebrews and the ac- 
knowledged epistles of Paul. 


Are the sentiments in our epistle such as Paul was wont toteach? Do 
they accord with his, not only in such a general way as we may easily 
suppose the sentiments of all Christians in the apostolic age harmonized 
with each other, but have they the colouring, the proportion, the char- 
acteristic features of Paul’s sentiments? Are they so stated and insisted 
on, as Paul is wont to state and insist on his ? 


132 § 21. INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 


Before proceeding in my endeavours to answer these questions, it will 
be proper to state some general considerations in regard to the nature of 
the evidence in question. 

Those who disbelieve the Pauline origin of our epistle are wont to urge 
very strenuously all the discrepancies between it and the acknowledged 
epistles of Paul, as to diction, phraseology, ideas, doctrine, etc., and to 
claim that these decide the point against the probability that Paul was the 
author of the epistle to the Hebrews. Schulz and Seyffarth have made 
up almost the whole of their arguments against the Pauline origin of the 
epistle, from considerations of this nature. Others before them had done 
so toaconsiderable extent ; and Bleek and De Wette have recently adopt- 
ed much of this nature from the writers just named. 

Now if there be any weight in this argument, it is incumbent on those 
who adopt a different opinion, to show that the opposite of this is true, 
viz. that there is a resemblance (instead of a great discrepancy), between 
our epistle and the acknowledged writings of Paul; and if this resem- 
blance can be shewn to extend to all the particulars above named, to be 
striking, and to be minute, then of course the argumeut in question is de- 
prived of all its importance and shewn to be groundless. 

Bleck (Rev. p. 15) expresses his wonder that I should think of dedu- 
cing any argument in favour of Paul, from such resemblances. He says 
that the resemblance is still more striking between Paul and the first epis- 
tle of Peter; e. g. 1 Pet. 1: 3, comp. Eph. 1:3; 1 Pet. 3: 1, comp. Eph. 
5: 22; 1 Pet. 3: 9, comp. Rom. 12: 17; 1 Pet. 5: 5, comp. Eph. 5: 21; 
1 Pet. 5: 14, comp. 1 Cor. 16: 20; 1 Pet.2: 10, comp. Gal. 5: 15 (14 3); 
1 Pet. 2: 13 seq., comp. Rom. 13: 1—4; 1 Pet. 4: 2. comp. Phil. 2: 14. 
1 Pet. 5: 1, comp. Rom. 8: 18, etc. 

That there are resemblances of expression, in some of these passages, 
need not be denied. I have examined them all with attention. Some of 
the references are undoubtedly incorrect, and do not express the meaning 
of Prof. Bleek ; e. g. Gal. 5: 13. Phil. 2: 14, or else the corresponding 1 
Pet. 2: 10 and 4: 2 are incorrect. As to the others collectively we may 
say, that the respective writers, in inculeating the same sentiments, have 
now and then hit upon the same words. This is all that can be justly 
said. Why did not Bleek draw out these parallelisms, and produce them 
to the view of the reader? ‘The bare inspection of them would shew the 
very contrary of that for which they are alleged. Every reader of Greek 
has the power of making the comparison for himself; and to every one 
who does make it, and is competent to judge of the result, I cheerfully 
commit the question at issue. 

Then as to arrangement, colouring, diction, course of thought in gener- 
al, method of arguing and exhorting—in a word, the tout ensemble of the 
first epistle of Peter,—I hazard nothing in repeating it, that every reader 
must feel the difference to be wide between this and the epistle to the 
Hebrews. But if this is not to be appealed to, (and I am altogether wil- 
ling that a resort to actual comparison should be made), then let the re- 
semblance be drawn out for ocular view, between 1 Pet. and the Ep. to 
the Hebrews; as I have drawn it out in the following pages between the 
latter and Paul’s acknowledged epistles. The fairness of this appeal will 
not be called in question. 


§ 21. INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 133 


Bleek wonders that I should think of arguing from the similarity of 
our epistle to Paul’s, (which he acknowledges is great, p. 15), that Paul 
was the author of the former. But if diversity be an argument against 
sameness of authorship, (and so Bleek and others strenuously contend) , 
then why is not similarity an argument in favour of it? I allow, that there 
may be similarity arising from intimate intercourse, frequent reading and 
admiring, ete., between two different writers; but then, on the other 
hand, it must also be allowed, that diversity, and sometimes great diversi- 
ty too, may exist, and does exist, between the writings of the same man, 
at different periods of his life, and in different circumstances. Conse- 
quently neither similarity nor diversity, unless they are of a very marked 
and specific character, can absolutely determine the question in the one 
way or the other. 

But still, when diversity is urged as a powerful and conclusive argu- 
ment against the Pauline origin of our epistle, it is of course the duty of 
those who advocate this origin, to show (if they can) that just the oppo- 
site of this is true, and consequently that there is no ground for such an 
argument. As a species of negative proof, therefore, if nothing more, it 
becomes expedient to produce this, and fully to produce it. Wiy should 
Bleek find fault with me for doing this, while he insists on diversity of 
diction, ete. as an argument against the Pauline origin of the epistle in 
question ? 

If the resemblances that will be pointed out in the sequel, show noth- 
ing more, they shew thus much, viz. that there is not in our epistle suffi- 
cient diversity, το. justify any one for pleading this, in order to prove that 
Paul did not write it. This done, the principal argument of those who 
do thus plead, is rendered null. 

I hope for pardon, then, while [ still persist in producing the resem- 
blances in question. Nor are they merely of a negative character. We 
shall see that they are too near, and too numerous, not to have some posi- 
tive weight in rendering it probable that Paul was the author of our epistle. 

I begin, as the heading of this Section proposes, with resemblance in 
regard to doctrine. 

The resemblance in respect to pocTRINE may be arranged, for the sake 
of perspicuity and distinction, under the following heads. 


[. General preference of Christianity over Judaism. 


There can, indeed, be no reasonable doubt, that all the apostles and 
primitive teachers of Christianity, who were well instructed in the princi- 
ples of this religion, must have acknowledged and taught its superiority 
over the ancient religion of the Jews. The very fact that they were 
Christians, necessarily implies this. But still, it is quite certain, that the 
preference of the new over the ancient religion, is taught by Paul ina 
manner different from that of other writers of the New Testament ; and 
with more emphasis, in his writings, than in any other parts of the sacred 
volume. 

The grounds of preferring Christianity to Judaism, may be classed un- 
der the following particulars. 

(1) The superior degree of light, or religious knowledge, imparted by the 
gospel. 


184 § 21. INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 


In his acknowledged epistles, Paul calls Judaism τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου, 
Gal. 4:33; and again, τὰ ἀσϑενὴ καὶ πτωχὰ στοιχεῖα, Gal. 4:9, He rep- 
resents it as adapted to children, νήπιοι, Gal. 4: 3, who are in a state of 
nonage and pupilage, Gal. 4: 2, or in the condition of servants rather 
than that of heirs, Gal. 4: 1. 

On the other hand, Christians attain to a higher knowledge of God, 
Gal. 4: 9; they are no more as servants, but become sons, and obtain the 
privilege of adoption, Gal, 4: 5,6. They are represented as τέλειοι, 1 
Cor. 14: 20; as being furnished with instruction adequate to make them 
ἄνδρας τελείους, Eph. 4: 11—13. Christianity leads them to see the glo- 
rious displays of himself, which God has made with an unveiled face, i. e. 
clearly, 2 Cor. 3:18; while Judaism threw a veil over these things, 2 
Cor. 2:13. Christianity is engraven on the hearts of its votaries, ἢ δια- 
novia τοῦ πνεύματος, 2 Cor. 3:8; while Judaism was engraven on tab- 
lets of stone, ἐνγτετυπομένη ἐν λέϑοις, 2 Cor, 3: 7. 

Such is the brief sketch of Paul’s views in respect to this point, as rep- 
resented in his acknowledged epistles. Let us now compare these views 
with those which the epistle to the Hebrews discloses. 

This epistle commences with the declaration, that God, who in times 
past spake to the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken 
to us by his Son, Heb. 1: 1. 2:1, seq. Judaism was revealed only by 
the mediation of angels, 2: 2; while Christianity was revealed by the Son 
of God, and abundantly confirmed by miraculous gifts of the Holy Ghost, 
2:3,4. The ancient covenant was imperfect, in respect to the means 
which it furnished for the diffusion of knowledge; but the new covenant 
provides that all shall know the Lord, from the least to the greatest, 8: 
9—11. ‘The law was only a sketch or imperfect representation of reli- 
gious blessings ; while the gospel proffers the blessings themselves, 10: 1. 
The worthies of ancient times had only imperfect views of spiritual bless- 
ings ; while Christians enjoy them in full measure, 11: 39, 40. 

(2) The gospel holds out superior motives and encouragements to virtue 
and piety. 

Paul represents the condition of the Jews, while under the law, as like 
to that of children immured and kept under the eye of masters and teach- 
ers, Gal. 3: 23. 4: 2; as being in bondage, Gal. 4: 3; as servants, 4: 1; as 
children, 4: 3; and as having the spirit of bondage, Rom. 8:15. This 
servile spirit which inspired them with fear, Rom. 8: 15, gives place, un- 
der the Christian religion, to the spirit of adoption, by which they approach 
God with filial confidence, Rom. 8: 15—17. Christianity has liberated 
us from pedagogues, and made us partakers of the privileges of sons and 
heirs, Gal. 3: 25, seq. 4: 4, seq. The liberty of the gospel affords urgent 
motives for the practice of virtue, Gal. 5: 1, seq. 5: 13, seq. The spirit 
imparted under the gospel furnishes aid, and creates special obligation, to 
mortify our evil passions and affections, Rom. 8: 12—17. Circumcision 
is now nothing, and uncircumcision nothing; but obedience to the com- 
mands of God is the all important consideration, 1 Cor. 7:19. Not cir- 
cumcision or uncircumcision is matter of concern, under the Christian 
religion, but a new creation, i. e. a spiritual renovation, Gal. 6: 15, and 
faith which worketh by love, Gal. 5: 6. 


§ 21. INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 135 


Turn we now to the epistle to the Hebrews. There we find, that the 
sacrifices prescribed by the Jewish law could not quiet and purify the 
conscience of the worshipper, 9: 9; nor deliver him from the pollution of 
sin, in order that he might in a becoming manner worship the living God ; 
which is effected only under the gospel, 9: 14. The law served to inspire 
its votaries with awe and terror, Heb. 12: 18—21; but the gospel with 
cheering confidence, 12: 22—24. Now we may obtain grace to βοῦν God 
in an acceptable manner, 12: 28. We have a covenant established on 
better promises than the ancient one, 8: 6—13; and are urged by more 
powerful motives to a holy life under the gospel, 12: 25—29, 

It must be admitted, in respect to the particulars of the comparison just 
drawn, that the diction of the passages generally, in the epistle to the He- 
brews, presents no very striking resemblances to that in Paul’s acknow- 
ledged epistles. But this, as will be easily seen by inspecting all the pas- 
sages drawn into the comparison, may very naturally result from the 
different topics with which the passages from our epistle stand connected. 
The mode of introducing these topics is different, because it arises from 
different occasions of introducing them. But the fundamental ideas in 
both are the same. Other writers also of the New Testament urge the 
obligations of Christians to peculiar holiness of life ; but what other writers, 
except Paul, urge it from comparative views of the Jewish and Christian 
dispensations ἢ 

(3) The superior efficacy of the gospel in promoting and ensuring the real 
and permanent happiness of mankind. 

Paul represents the law as possessing only a condemning power, and 
subjecting all men to its curse, in consequence of disobedience, Gal. 3: 
10. It is the ministry of death, 2 Cor. 3:7; the ministry of condemna- 
tion, 2 Cor. 3:9; by it none can obtain justification or pardoning mercy, 
Gal. 3: 11. Rom. 3: 20. 

On the contrary, Christianity is the ministry of pardon, τῆς δικαιοσύγης, 
2 Cor. 3:9; it holds out forgiveness of sins for the sake of Christ, gratui- 
tous pardon on account of him, Rom. 4: 24, 25. Eph. 1:7. Through 
him, we are allowed to cherish the hope of future glory, Rom. 5: 1, 2; 
and this without perfect obedience to the law, Rom. 3:21. Gal. 2: 16. 
Acts 13: 38,39. And to such blessings under the gospel, a most impor- 
tant circumstance is attached in order to heighten their value, viz. that 
they are perennial, and not (like the Mosaic institutions) liable to abolition, 
2 Cor. 3: 11. 

In correspondence with all this, the episule to the Hebrews represents 
the Mosaic dispensation as one which was calculated to inspire awe and 
terror, Heb. 12: 18—21; the offerings and sacrifices which it enjoined, 
could never tranquillize and purify the conscience of the worshipper, 9: 
9; for it was impossible that the blood of bulls and goats should take 
away sin, 10: 4,11. The blood of Christ has made a real expiation, pro- 
cured forgiveness, and liberated the conscience from an oppressive sense 
of guilt, 9: 11—14. 5:9. 6: 18—20. Christ by his death has delivered 
us from the condemning power of sin, and freed us from the oppressive 
fear which it occasions, 2: 14, 15. He has procured access to God, and 
is ever ready to aid those who approach him, 7: 25. 9:24. The offering 


136 § 21. INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 


which he has made for sin has a perennial influence, ate without ee 
‘tion remains forever efficacious, 9: 12, 25—28. 10:12. 7: 23—28. 

Other writers also of the New Testament have set before us the bles- 
sings of the gospel; and these, as connected with what Christ has done 
and suffered. But what other writer, except Paul, has charged his pic- 
ture with such a contrast between the Mosaic and Christian dispensations, 
and thrown so much shade over the one, and light over the other? If 
the hand of Paul be not in the epistle to the Hebrews, it is the hand of 
one who had drunk in deeply of his doctrines, and in a high degree parti- 
cipated of his feelings and views. 

(4) The Jewish dispensation was only a type and shadow of the Christian. 

Thus Paul often represents it. Meats and drinks, feasts and new 
moons and sabbaths, are σκιὰ τῶν μελλόντων, but the σῶμα is Christ, Col. 
2: 16,17. The passage through the Red Sea was typical of Christian 
ἘΠ} ; and the manna, of our spiritual food, 1 Cor. 10: 1—6. The 
occurrences under the ancient dispensation were typical of things under 
the new, 1 Cor. 10:11. In like manner, Paul calls Adam τύπος τοῦ μέλ- 
λοντος, i.e. a type of Christ, Rom. 5: 14. comp. 1 Cor. 15: 45—47. The 
Mosaic institution did but darkly shadow that, which is clearly revealed 
under the gospel, 2 Cor. 3: 13—18. Hagar and Sarah may be considered 
as allegorically representing the law and the gospel, or the two covenants, 
Gal. 4: 22—31. The law was only our pedagogue until the coming of 
Christ, under whom full privileges are enjoyed, Gal. 3: 23—25. 4: 1—5. 

The epistle to the Hebrews, in like manner, represents the Jewish rites 
and ordinances only as a mopopoliy i i.e. a significant emblem of blessings 
under the gospel; and these rite’ were imposed only until the time of 
reformation, 9: 9—14. The law was only ox of good things to come ; 
while the gospel proffered the very things themselves, 10: 1. All the 
Levitical ritual, the temple itself and all its appurtenances, were only a 
ὑπόδειγμα of the temple in which Christ ministers, and of the functions 
which he performs, 8: 1—9. 9: 22—24; they were a designed emblem 
of the objects of the new dispensation, 9: 9. 

The question may be emphatically put, here, What other parts of the 
New Testament, the writings of Paul excepted, furnish us with views of 
such a nature as these exhibit? Manifestly Pauline is both the sentiment, 
and the costume which the writer has put upon it. 

(5) While the Christian dispensation is designed for perpetuity, the Jewish 
institutes are abolished on account of their imperfection. 

Paul represents the Law as having no glory, in comparison with Chris- 
tianity, 2 Cor. 3: 10; it was designed to be abolished, when the perennial 
dispensation of Christ should be introduced, 2 Cor. 3. 11,13. The veil 
over the ancient dispensation rendered it obscure, and hindered the Jews 
from fully comprehending it; but the time was come, under the gospel, 
when that veil was removed, and the glory of God was seen with open 
face, 2 Cor. 3: 13—18. The law being altogether incapable of justifying 
sinners, gives place to another and gratuitous method of justification, Rom. 
4: 14--16. Christians are dead to the law, and affianced to another 
covenant, Rom. 7: 4—6. The law was incompetent to effect the designs 
of divine benevolence, and therefore gives place to a more perfect dispen- 


'§ 21. INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 137 


sation, Gal. 3: 21—25. 4:1—7.5:1. It was void of power to justify 
the sinner, and therefore the interposition of Christ became necessary, 
Rom. ὃ: 3, 4. Gal. 2: 16. 

On the other hand, the writer of the epistle to the Hebrews represents 
the new covenant as inspiring better hopes than the ancient one did, and 
the latter as taxable with defects, 8: 6—8. The old covenant is antiqua- 
ted, and ready to expire, ἐγγὺς ἀφανισμοῦ, 8: 195, Christ is appointed 
high priest according to a new. order of priesthood, different from the 
Levitical one; because the dispensation by which the latter received its 
appointment, was weak, and incompetent to effect the introduction of 
such hopes as the gospel inspires, 7: 17—19. Burnt-offerings and sacri- 
fices can never take away sin; Christ only can effect this; so that when 
his offering is made, it needs not to’ be repeated, but is of sufficient and 
everlasting eflicacy, 10: 1—14. 

Other writers of the New Testament have also appealed to the efficacy 
of Jesus’ atoning blood; but who, besides Paul, has thrown this whole 
subject into an attitude of contrast with the inefficiency of the Jewish 
dispensation ? 

Thus much for our first general head, by way of comparing the senti- 
ments of Paul with those of our epistle, in respect to the grounds of pref- 
erence over Judaism which Christianity affords. 


Ii. The person and work of the Mediator, Jesus Christ. 


Under this head, the following particulars are entitled to our consid- 
eration ; 

(1) The rerson of the Mediator is presented in the same light, by the wrt- 
ter of the epistle to the Hebrews and by Paul. 

Paul, in various passages, represents Christ as the image of God, as the 
resemblance or likeness of the Father; as humbling himself, or conde- 
scending to assume our nature and suffer death in it; and as being ex- 
alted in consequence of this, i.e. as a reward of his benevolence and obe- 
dience, to the throne of the universe, and made head over all things. 
Thus in Phil. 2: 6—11, Christ being ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ, took on himself our 
nature, and obeyed, or subjected himself in the same, unto death, even 
the death of the cross; in consequence of which God hath given him a 
name above every other, so that all in heaven or on earth must bow the 
knee to him. In Col. 1: 15—20, Christ is represented as the image of 
the invisible God ; as having created all things in heaven and in earth; 
all things are said to consist by him; over all he has a distinguished pre- 
eminence ; and by his sufferings and death he has produced a reconcilia- 
tion among the creatures of God, and made expiation for sin, so that God 
treats the pardoned sinner as if he were innocent. In 2 Cor. 8:9 Paul 
says, that the Lord Jesus Christ, who was rich, became poor on our ac- 
count, that we through his poverty might become rich. In Eph. 3: 9, 
God is said to have created all things by Jesus Christ; and in 1 Cor.8 : 6, 
all things are said to be by him. In 1 Cor. 15: 25—27, it is declared 
that he must reign until all things are put under his feet. 

The peculiarity of this Pauline representation consists in presenting 
Christ as the image of God ; in specifying the act of humility by which 
: 18 


138 $21. INTERNAL EVIDENCE.’ 


he became incarnate, he hwnbled himself (ξαυτὸν ἐκένωσε),, though rich he be- 
came poor; in presenting his obedience and sufferings as the ground of 
his elevation to the throne of the universe in the mediatorial nature ; in 
representing him as head over all, both friendsand enemies, and as reign- 
ing until his enemies be made his footstool; and finally, in representing 
God as having created all things by him. 

If we turn now to the epistle to the Hebrews, we find the same repre- 
sentations there. The Son of God is the radiation or radiance of the 
Father’s glory, he is bis exact image or resemblance, χαρακτήρ, 1:3. 
God made all things by him, 1: 9, He directs all things by his power- 
ful word, 1:3. He wasin a state of humiliation (ἡλαττωμένο»), lower 
than the angels, 2:9. He took part in flesh and blood, that he might, 
by his own death, render null and void the destructive power of the 
devil, 2: 14. On account of the suffering of death he is exalted toa 
state of glory and honour, 2:9. He endured the sufferings of the cross, 
making no account of its disgrace, but having a regard to the reward set 
before him, which was a seat at the right hand of God, 12: 2. All things 
are put under his feet, 2: 8. 10: 13; where the very same passage from 
the Old Testament is quoted which Paul quotes in 1 Cor. 1 : 25—28, 
and applied in the same manner. 

Is all this now mere accident? What other writer of the New Testa- 
ment preseuts such speciality of views respecting Christ’s resemblance to 
God, his mediatorial character, his obedience, sufferings, and exaltation in 
our nature to the throne of the universe ? No other writer presents them 
in the same connection ; no other employs the same images for compari- 
son, nor brings the topics to view in the same light. ‘There is a peculiarity 
of representation so distinctly marked here, so exclusively Pauline in its 
manner, that if Paul himself did not write the epistle to the Hebrews, it 
must have been some one who had drunk in so deeply of his spirit, as to 
become the very image of the fountain whence he drew. 

(2) The death of Christ as a propitiatory sacrifice for sin, and the recon- 
ciliation of sinners to God by means of this sacrifice. 

Other writers of the New Testament, indeed, besides Paul, teach this 
doctrine. But there is, in his letters, a peculiar and urgent manner of 
enforcing it. Oftener than any other writer does he recur to this inter- 
esting theme ; and in all his representations it stands in high relief. 

The general annunciation of it is often repeated. Christ came into the 
world to save sinners, 1 Tim. 1: 15. He died for our sins, 1 Cor. 15: 3. 
He was given up or devoted to death on our account, Rom. 8:32. Our 
redemption was wrought by him, Rom. 3: 24. He was given up, 1. 6. to 
death, on account of our offences, Rom. 4: 25. He gave up himself for 
our sins, Gal. 1: 4. 2: 20. He gave up himseif an acceptable sacrifice 
for us, Eph. 5: 2. He was our paschal lamb, 1 Cor. 5:7. By his blood 
we have redemption-or forgiveness of sin, Eph. 1:7. Col. 1:14. He 
gave himself a ransom for all, 1 'Tim. 2: 6. 1 Cor. 6: 20. 7:23. These 
may serve as specimens of the general statement, which Paul so frequent- 
ly makes of this subject. 

But he also recurs very often to this topic in his reasonings at length, 
and insists upon it with particularity. In his epistle to the Romans, he 


ᾧ 21. INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 139 


labours at length to prove the universal guilt of men, in order to show 
that salvation by Christ is necessary for all, Rom. 3: 22—27. 5: 12. 9] 
He urges the impossibility of obtaining this salvation by the law, Rom. 
3:20, 28 8:3. Gal. 2: 16, 21, averring that Jesus, by his death, has δὲς 
fected what the law could not do. Assuming our nature, he became a 
sin-offering for us, Rom. 8: 3. He became a propitiatory sacrifice on our 
account, so that through him we may obtain pardoning mercy, Rom. 
3: 24—26. As all men have come into a state of condemnation through 
Adam, so all men may come into a state of pardon through Christ, Rom. 
5: 12—21, comp. 2 Cor. 5: 14, 19—21. Now, i. 6. since Christ died for 
us, Christians may regard God as no more inclined to punish them as 
guilty, for they are in a state of peace and pardon, Rom. 5: 1, 8—11. 
8:32. Now we may hope for abounding grace and happiness, Rom. 
5:17. 6: 23, 8: 17,32. Jesus at the right hand of God is ever ready to 
aid us, Rom. 8: 34, Jesus is the Mediator between God and man, to 
make reconciliation, 1 Tim. 2: 5,6. It were easy to add many other 
passages of the same tenor, from the acknowledged writings of Paul; but 
these are sufficient to exhibit his views, and the mode in which he ineul- 
cates them. 

In the epistle to the Hebrews, we find the same sentiments urged with 
the same ardour. Christ, by the sacrifice of himself, made expiation for 
our sins, 1:3. By the grace of God, assuming our nature, he tasted 
death for all, 2:9. He became, through his sufferings, the author of eter- 
nal salvation to believers, 5: 8, 9. But no where is there more speciality 
of argument to establish this great point, than in Heb, vir. vin.1x, and x. ; 
nearly all of which is occupied with it. ‘The Jewish offerings are alto- 
gether insufficient to make expiation, 9: 9—14. 7: 11, 19. 10: 1,1]. 
Those offerings needed constant repetition ; and even then, they could 
never remove sin, 5: 1—3. 7: 27, 28. 9: 6,7, 25. 10:4,11. Christ by 
offering up himself has effected this, 1: 3. 7:27. 9: 25, 26. By his own 
blood, not with that of beasts, he entered into the eternal sanctuary, once 
for all making expiation for sin, 9: 12—15. 10: 10—12, 14,19. By his 
death he has delivered us from the oppressive fear of condemnation, 2: 
14,15. He has tranquillized and purified the conscience of penitent sin- 
ners, which the law could not do, 9: 9, 14. He is the mediator of a new 
covenant, 9: 15. 12: 245; which is better than the ancient one, 7: 22. 8:6. 
He is exalted to the throne of the universe, 2: 6—10; and he is ever 
ready and able to assist us, 4: 14—16. 7:25. He has introduced us to 
a dispensation, which speaks not terror only, like the law, but offers 
abounding grace and happiness, 12: 18—29, 

Such are some of the more striking traits of doctrine, and peculiarities 
in the mode of representing them, common to the acknowledged epistles of 
Paul and to the epistle to the Hebrews.* 


* Bleek (Rev. p. 16) admits, that the comparison made above is ‘“ diligent 
and praiseworthy ;”’ but suggests, as a kind of reply to it, that [ have passed 
over in silence differences between the epistle to the Hebrews and the acknowl- 
edged writings of Paul, and have produced only the similarities. The groundless- 
ness of his complaint, however, will be sufficiently manifest to any one who reads 
the sequel of this volume, almost the whole of which is occupied with the ex- 


149 § 22. INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 


§ 22. Form and method of the episile to the Hebrews compared with those of 
Paul’s acknowledged epistles. 


These topics may be considered, either in a general point of view, as 
jt respects the arrangement of the epistle at large ; or specially, as having 
reference to various particulars which it exhibits. 


(1) The general method or arrangement of this epistle is like to that of 
Paul. 

Most of all does it resemble his two epistles to the Romans, and to the 
Galatians ; which exhibit first a theoretical or doctrinal, then a practical 
part. The epistle to the Romans is principally occupied, to the end of 
the tenth chapter, with the doctrinal part; and the remainder with prac- 
tical matter and salutations. In like manner the epistle to the Galatians, 
as far as the end of the fourth chapter, is principally doctrinal discussion ; 
while the remainder is hortatory and practical. In some degree, the 
same thing may be said of the epistles to the Ephesians, Colossians, Philip- 
pians, and Thessalonians. But that to the Romans is most distinctly 
marked of all. 

Turning now to the epistle to the Hebrews, we find that it is composed 
on asimilar plan. As far as chapter 10: 19, it is principally doctrinal. 
It has, however, like Paul’s other epistles, occasional exhortation inter- 
mixed, which the strength of the writer’s feelings plainly appears to have 
forced from him. Thence to the end, it is hortatory and practical. 

In the epistle to the Romans, just before the salutatory part begins, the 
writer earnestly asks for a special interest in the prayers of those whom 
he addressed, in order that he may be delivered from the power of per- 
secution; and he follows this request with a petition, that the God of 
peace might be with them, and concludes with an Amen, Rom. 15: 30— 
33. The very same order, petition, style, and conclusion, appear at the 
close of the epistle to the Hebrews, 13: 18—21. The writer begs an in- 
terest in their prayers, that he may be restored to them the sooner 5; com- 
mends them to the God of peace, (an expression used no where else but 
in Paul’s writings and in the epistle to the Hebrews) ; and concludes with 
an Amen before the salutation. 

Is all this arrangement, to which we have now adverted, merely acct- 
dental ; or does it look as if it must have come from the hand of the same 
writer? J know, indeed, it bas been said, that ‘the order of nature and 
propriety would lead every man, writing an epistle which contained doc- 
trinal discussion and practical exhortation, to arrange them in sucha 
manner that the former should precede; and that this arrangement, 
therefore, cannot with probability be represented as exclusively Pauline.’ 
With the views of rhetorical propriety, which are entertained by classical 
scholars of the present day, I readily acknowledge that such an order is 


- 


amination of alleged differences, and among the rest of the very ones which he 
suggests that I have omitted. But I attribute this complaint more to want of 
care than lack of candour ; for in general Prof. Bleek has shown a kind and can- 
did spirit toward my work; although 1 might find reason to complain in some 
cases, that he has kept back things which should have been stated. 


§ 22. INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 141 


almost spontaneous. But then, another question arises here. Why has 
not Paul adopted this in all his epistles? And why has neither John, 
nor James, nor Peter, nor Jude adopted it? All these apostles have 
commingled doctrine and practice, throughout their epistles. Regularly 
arranged discussion of doctrine, they do not exhibit. In this respect, the 
only similars to the epistle to the Hebrews, are to be found in the epistles 
of Paul. But if the general arrangement here adverted to, be not con- 
sidered as of much weight in the matter before us, it must be admitted. 
that there is a striking resemblance between the close of the practical 
part, just before the salutations or greetings, in the epistles to the Romans 
and to the Hebrews. Here also we find the exclusively Pauline phrase, 
the God of peace, employed in the same way in both epistles. 

(2) The manner of appealing to and employing the Jewish Scriptures, 
in Paul’s acknowledged epistles and in the epistle to the Hebrews, is the same. 

I do not refer to the formulas of quotation, by which a passage from 
the Old Testament is introduced. I have compared, throughout, those 
formulas presented by the epistle to the Hebrews, with those in Paul’s 
acknowledged epistles ; but [ do not find any thing peculiar enough in 
either, to mark Paul’s writings with any good degree of certainty; as I 
shall endeavour to show, in its proper place. Every where in the New 
Testament, a variety of such formulas is found ; as also in the epistles of 
Paul. My present object is to advert, in a particular manner, to the 
method in which, and the frequency with which, the Jewish Scriptures are 
employed ; and that in a similar way, both in the epistle to the Hebrews 
and in the acknowledged epistles of Paul. Paul often quotes passages of 
Scripture, without any notice of quotations; e.g. Rom.9: 7, 21. 10: 6—8, 
Tess ΤΠ τ 1Cors,.2 316), 10.26, 45-325; ΘΟ ΘΟ: Oo 713: 
1. Gal. 3: 11, 12. Eph. 5: 31. 2 Tim. 2:19. In like mamner, does the 
writer of the epistle to the Hebrews proceed; e. g. he quotes without no- 
tice, in 3: 2, 5. 10: 37. 11: 21. 12: 6. 13: 6,and the historical references 
in chap. x1. throughout. Paul makes a very frequent and copious use of 
‘the Jewish Seriptures, in his epistles which are argumentative; so does 
the writer of the epistle to the Hebrews. Paul often appeals to the Jew- 
ish Scriptures as prophetically declaring the abrogation of the Mosaic 
economy, and to Abraham as having received a covenant which the 
law could not annul; the same does the writer of the epistle to the He- 
brews. Paul employs the Old Testament in every way in which the 
Jews of that time were usually accustomed to reason from it. Some- 
times he appeals to direct and prophetic assurances; sometimes to simi- 
larity of sentiment ; sometimes he accommodates passages, which in the 
original have a local or temporary meaning, to designate sorhething then 
extant or happening at the time in which he wrote; sometimes he ap- 
peals to the history of the Old Testament, for analogical cases to confirm 
or impress the doctrine or truth which he inculeates; and sometimes he 
uses the Old Testament language as a vehicle of thought, in order to ex- 
press his own ideas. The very same traits characterize, in a most visible 
manner, the method in which the Old Testament is employed throughout 


142 § 22. INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 


the epistle to the Hebrews; as every attentive reader must plainly see, 
without my delaying to specify individual cases.* 

In a particular manner does Paul employ passages of the Jewish Scrip- 
ture and Scripture history, κατ΄ ἄνϑρωπον ; in other words, he uses them by 
way of argumentum ad hominem or argumentum ex concessis. It is thus 
that he allegorizes on the two sons of Sarah and Hagar, in Gal. 4 : 24, 
seq. ; on the command of Moses not to muzzle the ox which treadeth out 
the corn, Deut. 35: 4, the spirit of which he applies to the maintenance 
of religious teachers, in 1 Cor. 9:9; on the rock from which the Israel- 
ites obtained water, Ex. 17:6, which he considers as an emblem of 
Christ, in 1 Cor. 10: 2, seq. ; on the veil over Moses’ face, Ex. 34: 33, 
which he applies to the comparative obscurity that rested on the Jewish 
revelation, in 2 Cor. 3: 13,14; on the declaration that a man should 
leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife, and that they twain 
should become one flesh, Gen. 2:24, which he applies to the union of 
Christ and his church in Eph. 5: 31, 32. 

How conspicuous this method of reasoning is, in the epistle to the He- 
brews, need not be insisted on for the sake of any attentive reader. "The 
whole comparison between Christ and Melchizedek (Heb. vii.) is of a na- 
ture similar to those already mentioned. The temple and all its appara- 
tus, and the holy place which the high priest entered with his expiatory 
offerings of blood, are types and shadows of the temple, of the offering, 
and of the great high priest presenting it, in the heavens, Heb. 8: 1—5. 
9:1—9. Indeed the strain of argumentation, throughout, is often ad 
hominem or ex concessis. The argument that Christ is a more exalted 
personage than the angels, than Moses, than the high priest; that Christ’s 
priesthood, the temple in which he officiates with all its apparatus, the of- 
fering of blood which he makes, and his official duties as a priest, are all 
spiritual, heavenly, elevated above all the corresponding things in the 
Jewish dispensation to which the Jew adhered with so strong an attach- 
ment, and by which he was tempted to make defection from his Christian 
profession, is peculiarly ad hominem. We who are not Jews, and who 
have never felt the power of their prejudices, need not, in order to pro- 
duce in us a conviction of the importance of Christianity, to be addressed 
with comparisons drawn from ritual types and from the analogy of such 
objects. But these were all familiar to the Jew, and were not only at- 
tractive to him, but, in his view of the highest importance. No one, in- 
deed, can reasonably find fault that the writer addresses the Jews as such ; 
reasons with them as such; and makes use of those arguments, whether 
ad hominem or ex concessis, which he knew would produce the most power- 
ful effect in persuading them to hold fast the truths of Christianity. There 
is nothing in this, which is inconsistent with the maxim of that apostle 
who became “all things to all men;” with the Jews demeaning himself 
and reasoning as a Jew, and in like manner with the Gentiles, in order 
that he might win both to Christianity. 


* Bleek has given a view of the quotations in our epistle, very different from 
the one here exhibited. But I reserve the examination of it for another occa- 


sion, viz. that of examining Schulz’s allegations relative to thissubject. See ob- 
jections by Shulz, § 27. No. 18. 


§ 22. INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 143 


But it is not my object here to defend the manner of argumentation 
employed in Paul’s acknowledged epistles, and in the epistle to the He- 
brews. I design merely to shew, (what cannot be denied), that the same 
method of reasoning from sentiments and objects presented by the Old 
Testament, is exhibited by both, and in a manner which cannot well 
escape the attention of the inquisitive reader. 

‘I will only ask now, What other writers of the New Testament have 
exhibited the traits of composition which I have noted under this head, 
in the same degree or withthe same frequency ? Nay, I venture to affirm 
that there is scarcely an approximation in any of their writings, to those 
of Paul, either in regard to the frequency or the latitude of the usage in 
question. 

But it may be said, ‘ This only shews that the other writers just nam- 
ed were not the authors of the epistle to the Hebrews, but not that Paul 
wrote this epistle.’ 

It seems to me, however, to go somewhat further. It proves that the 
characteristics peculiar to Paul’s epistles and to the epistle to the He- 
brews, were not the general characteristics of the sacred writers of that 
age ; and of course that either Paul, or one who had drunk in deeply of 
his doctrine and manner, must have written the epistle in question. 

(3) The manner of Paul’s writing, in respect to separating premises from 
conclusion, or protasis from apodosis, bears a striking resemblance to that 
which is found in the epistle to the Hebrews. 

I refer now to the manner of employing suspended sentences, and a 
species of anacolutha or imperfect sentences ; and also his custom of seizing 
hold of a word or phrase thrown out by the way and commenting on 
it, and then returning to his subject, and thus making frequent parenthe- 
ses. Paul sometimes states the major and minor terms, of a syllogism; or 
the first parts of asentence or comparison ; and then, leaving it in this un- 
finished state, he turns aside to illustrate or confirm some hint which was 
suggested to his mind by what he had stated; or some train of thought 
is introduced, to which the natural association of ideas would lead ; and 
after descanting on this, he returns, and with, or without, repeating his 
proposition or sentence at first commenced, presents in full the conclusion 
or apodosis which is required to complete it. 

A striking example of this occurs in Rom. 5: 12—18. “ Wherefore,” 
says he, “as by one man sin entered the world, and death by sin ; and so 
death passed upon all men, in that all have sinned, v. 12.” The premis- 
es being thus stated, he turns aside to descant on the universality of sin, 
its pernicious consequences, and the salutary effects of the blessing which 
is proffered by Christ; and it is not until he reaches the 18th verse of 
the chapter, that the proposition which he had commenced is repeated 
and the conclusion fully brought out, where it is thus stated ; “ There- 
fore, as by one offence condemnation [came upon] all men, so by the 
righteousness of one, the blessing of justification unto life [comes upon] 
all men.” 

So in Rom. 2: 6, Paul says, “‘ Who [God] will render to every man ac- 
cording to his works;” and after nine verses of explanatory matter, 
which was suggested by the mention of rendering to every man according 


144 § 22. INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 


to his works, he adds, at last, the remainder of the sentence which he had 
begun, viz. “in the day when God will judge the secret doings of men by 
Jesus Christ, according to the gospel which I preach, Rom. 2: 16.”* 

So in Eph. 3: 1, the apostle says, “ For this cause, I Paul the prisoner 
of Jesus Christ for you Geniiles ;” then leaving the sentence thus com- 
menced, he proceeds on 12 verses, with thoughts suggested by the men- 
tion of his being a messenger to the Gentiles; and finally, in the 18th 
verse, he adds the conclusion of the sentence commenced in the first, viz. 
“T desire that ye faint not at my tribulations fér you, which is your glory.” 

In the like way has the writer of the epistle to the Hebrews constructed 
some of his reasonings and sentences. In Heb. 4: 6, he says, “Seeing 
then it remains that some should enter into [the rest], and they to whom 
the good tidings were formerly proclaimed, did not enter in through unbe- 
lief— ;” the sentence is then suspended, until the writer intr oduces andth- 
er quotation from the Psalms, and reasons upon it in order to prove that 
the rest in question could not have been such a rest as the land of Canaan 
proffered. After this, and in the 9th verse, we have the concluding 
part of the sentence or syllogism, viz. “there remaineth then a rest for the 
people of God.” How entirely this coincides with the Pauline manner 
above exhibited, must strike the mind of every one who considers it. 

In 4: 2 also, καὶ γὰρ εὐαχγελιζόμενοι καϑάπερ κακχεῖνοι introduces a com- 
parison, which, in point of form, is no where completed. 

So in Heb. 5: 6, the writer introduces the divine appointment of Christ 
as a priest after the order of Melchizedek, with a design to show that this 
was an appointment of the most solemn nature, and ofa higher order than 
that of the Jewish priests. He then suspends the consideration of this 
topic, and introduces another, in vs. 7—9; after which he resumes the 
former topic. But no sooner does he do this, than he turns aside once 
more, in order to descant upon the difficulties switch present themselves 
in the way of an ample discussion of it. These result from the very im- 
perfect state of religious knowledge among those whom he addresses, 5: 
11—14; the criminality and danger of which state he dwells upon at 
large in chap. v1., intermixing threats and encouragements. It is not until 
we come to chap. 7: 1, that the subject of Melchizedek’s priesthood is re- 
sumed ; where it is treated of at full length. 

In Heb. 7: 1, ἃ sentence is begun with “This Melchizedek, king of Sa- 
lem, priest of the most high God,” which is then suspended through a 
long paragraph of intervening matter, and finally completed, at the end of 
v. 3, by μένει ἱερεὺς εἰς τὸ διηνεκές. And generally from ν. 8 to 18, there is 
a series of propositions, the connection of which it is exceedingly diffi- 
cult to discover. 


* Bleek (Rev. p. 19) objects to this instance of suspended sense, that 1 have 
not rightly comprehended the connection of the whole passage. But surely v. 
16 is not to be connected in sense with v. 15, inasmuch as the testimony there 
alluded to,in respect to the divine law, is present testimony, i. e. such as the 
heathen then exhibited ; ; not future testimony atthe judgment day. This being 
evidently the case, to what can v.16 be attached in sense, except to v. 6? Tt 
were easy to appeal to distinguished commentators in support of this exegesis ; 
but it seems to be unnecessary. 


§ 22. INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 145 


di Hee 9: 7 the writer says, that ‘the Jewish high-priest drone into 
the holy place once in each year, with the blood of victims in order to 
make atonement.’ This is designed as one member of a comparison ; but 
the other member follows only in 9: 11, 12, after descanting on several 
matters sugg gested by what the writer had stated. There the antithesis is 
stated, viz. “Jesus the high-priest of future blessings, entered the sanctu- 
ary of the temple not made with hands, with his own blood, accomplishing 
eternal redemption.” 

Such is the suspended connection here, even if we adopt that method 
of interpretation which will make it as close as possible. But an attentive 
consideration of the whole preceding context, will perhaps render it prob- 
able to the attentive reader, that Heb. 9: 11 may be the antithesis of the 
latter part of 8: 4 and the first part of 8: 5; where the ὑπόδειγμα and σκιὰ 
τὼν ἐπουρανίων, are in contrast with the eldvrcers ἀγαϑῶν and the μείζο- 
γος καὶ τελειοτέρας σκηνῆς οὗ χειροποιήτου of 9: 11. 

How much such suspensions resemble the manner of Paul, need not 
be again insisted on. Instances of this nature might easily be increased ; 
but no attentive critical reader can help observing them, as they abound 
in the epistle to the Hebrews. See more, connected with this general 
subject, in § 32. 

The instances above produced may serve to shew, that, as to form and 
method, in regard either to general arrangement, or the deducing of argu- 
ments from the Old Testament, or the exhibition of a peculiar manner in 
the statement of these arguments, or in the method of forming suspended 
and involved sentences, there is a striking similarity between the acknow- 
ledged writings of Paul and the epistle to the Hebrews. 

Bleek (Vol. I. p. 329 seq. and Rev. p. 18 seq.) has given a brief and 
very different view of the subject now before us. He states, indeed, the 
peculiarities of Paul’s style in much the same manner that I have done. 
But in regard to our epistle, he maintains (in his Review), that directly 
the opposite is true in regard to suspended and unfinished sentences and 
connections of thought. This he does, however, by simple affirmation 
here; although in his Introduction (I, p. 327 seq.), he has stated that ‘a 
regular finish of periods, an accurate position of words, and a fine rhythmus 
arising from this, are the characteristics of our epistle.’ Yet in p. 330 
seq. of the same work, he has produced a number of instances in order to 
shew the unskilful use, by the writer of the epistle to the Heb., of ov, δέ, 
etc., and to illustrate the position, that the writer is inferior to Paul in 
acuteness, and in definiteness of expression. Among these are οὖν in 
Heb. 4: 14, which refers back to Heb. 2: 17; and γάρ in 8: 4, where οὖν 
might be expected, and the same particle in 7: 12, 13, where δὲ would be 
more accurate; as also in 5:11 [12], 13 ete. 

How all this, and more of the like kind which he brings forward, agrees 
with the φράσις “Ἑλληνικωτέρα, which he so earnestly contends for, i in our 
epistle, and its fine regular periods and methodical rhythmus, I am unable 
to see. The truth is, when one point is to be made out by critiques of 
this nature, then the ancient dictum of Origen in regard to the style 
of our epistle, is brought forward with confidence; but when this 


point is out of sight, and the real state of facts in respect to style comes sim- 
19 


146 § 23. INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 


ply before the mind, then difficulties and peculiarities of constructiou 
enough may be found, and are actually found. How any man, who has 
written a commentary on the epistle to the Hebrews, can deny that there are 
suspended and incomplete sentences and sentiments in it, and (to say the 
least) as much obscurity arising from these constructions, as there is in 
any of Paul’s acknowledged epistles, I am not able to see. 

In respect to the thing itself just stated, which Bleek denies, and even 
ventures to affirm that ‘the writer has avoided such constructions with 
the greatest care ; this is a matter of fact, and not of opinion. Examples 
are not to be set aside by simple denial, and allegation of the contrary. 
Readers are capable of judging for themselves ; and to them Bleek and 
myself must leave it to decide, whether the instances produced corres- 
pond with the character which I have given them. 

To the method of argument which I have thus far employed, in order 
to shew the probability that Paul wrote the epistle to the Hebrews, some 
objections have been, and may be raised. 

It may be asked, ‘ Did not Paul’s hearers, disciples, and intimate friends, 
who travelled with him, daily conversed with him, and for years heard 
his instructions, cherish the same views of doctrine that he did? And in 
writing the epistle to the Hebrews, might not an attentive hearer of Paul, 
and a reader of his epistles, exhibit the same sentiments? And further, if 
the same general manner in which the contents of his epistles are arranged, 
or the contents of some of them, be found in the epistle to the Hebrews ; 
or if the particular manner in which he quotes or employs passages of the 
Jewish Scriptures, or interprets them; or if even his method of stating 
arguments, and employing imperfect syllogisms or sentences, be found in 
this epistle; still, may not some favourite disciple of his, some devoted 
follower and successful imitator of his manner, be naturally supposed to 
have derived all this from hearing him and reading his letters? And 
how then can arguments of this nature prove, that Paul wrote the epistle 
in question ?’ 

Prove it, in the way of demonstration, they certainly cannot; nor is this 
the purpose for which they are adduced. But of this, more hereafter. 
At present I merely observe, that the force of these objections is very 
much diminished, if in comparing the epistle to the Hebrews with the 
writings of Paul, it shall appear that not the strain of sentiment only, not 
merely the general arrangement of the contents of the epistle or the par- 
ticular manner of it in respect to various ways of reasoning, or construct- 
ing syllogisms and sentences, but even the idiomatical and distinctive style 
and diction itself of Paul abound in it. 'These, none but a writer that 
was a mere copyist or plagiarist could exhibit. But such a writer is one 
of the Jast men, who can be justly suspected of having composed an epis- 
tle like that to the Hebrews. 

These suggestions naturally lead us, in the next place, to a comparison 
in respect to phraseology and words, between the acknowledged writings of 
Paul and the epistle to the Hebrews. 


§ 23. INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 147 


§23. Comparison of the phraseology and diction of the epistle to the Hebrews 
and of the acknowledged epistles of Paul. 


{, The similarity of phraseology and diction, where the same words, or synonymous ones, are 
employed; or where the shade of thought or representation is peculiar and homogeneous, al- 
though the language may be somewhat diverse. 


Heb. 1: 9, Av οὗ [Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ] καὶ τοὺς αἰῶνας [ὁ ϑεὸς] ἐποίησε. 
Eph. 8: 9, Τῷ [Gen] τὰ πάντα κτίσαντι διὰ ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ. 


Heb. 1: 8, Ὃς ὧν ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης καὶ χαραχτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως 
αὐτοῦ. 

Col. 1: 15, Ὅς ἐστιν εἰκὼν τοῦ ϑεοῦ τοῦ ἀοράτου. 

Phil. 2: 6, Ὃς ἐν μορφῇ ϑεοῦ ὑπάρχων. 

2 Cor. 4: ‘4, Ὅς ἐστιν εἰκὼν τοῦ ϑεοῦ. 


τς ~ > « 
Heb. 1: 3, Φέρων τε τὰ πάντα τῷ ῥήματι τῆς δυνάμεως αὐτοῦ. 
τ ’ ~ 
Col. 1:17, Τὰ πάντα ἐν αὐτῷ συνέστηκε. 


Heb. 1: ὅ, Tiog μου εἶ σὺ, ἐγὼ σήμερον γεγέννηκά σε. 

Acts 13: 33, γἷός μου εἶ σὺ, ἐγὼ σήμερον γεγέννηκά σὲ; used here by 
Paul, and applied in both passages (but no where else in the New Testa- 
ment) to Christ. 


Heb. 1: 4, Τοσούτῳ κρείττων γενόμενος τῶν ἀγγέλων, ὅσῳ διαφορώτερον 
παρ᾿ αὑτοὺς κεκληρονύμηκεν ὦ ὄνομα. 

Eph. his 21, ‘Treouva..... παντὸς ὀνόματος ὀνομαζομένου ov μόνον ἐν 
τῳ αἰῶνι τούτῳ, ales καὶ ἐν τῷ μέλλοντι. 

Phil. ΘΟ θεὸς asiys ἐχαρίσατο αὐτῷ ὄνομα τὸ ὑπὲρ πᾶν ὄνομα ἵνα 
ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι ᾿Ιησοῦ πάν γόνυ κάμψῃ ἐπουρανίων x. τ. λ. 


Heb. 1: 6, Τόν πρωτότοκον Jesh 

Rom. 8: 99, Eig τὸ εἶναι αὐτὸν τὸν πρωτύτοχον. 

Col. 1: 15, πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως. V. 18, Πρφωτότοκος. This ap- 
pellation is applied to Christ no where else, excepting in Rey. 1: 5. 


Heb. 2: 2, ‘O du’ ἀγγέλων λαληϑεὶς λόγος. 

Gal. 3: 19, “O vouog..... διαταγεὶς Ou ἀγγέλων. Comp. Acts 7: 53. 

Here is the same sentiment, λόγος and γόμος being in this case syne- 
nymes ; as (for substance) λαληϑείς and διαταγείς are. However, Stephen 
once uses a similar expression, Acts 7: 53. 


Heb. 2: 4, Snusious τε χαὶ τέρασι, καὶ ποικίλαις δυνάμεσι, καὶ πνεύματος 
ἁγίου abc cie 

1 Cor. 12: 4, Ζιαιρέσεις δὲ χαρισμάτων εἰσὶ, τὸ δὲ αὐτὸ πνεῦμα. 

1 Cor. 12 2 dd, Πάντα δὲ ταῦτα ἐνέργει τὸ ἕν καὶ τὸ αὐτὸ πνεῦμα, διαροῦν 
ἰδίᾳ ἐκάστῳ καϑὼς βούλεται. 

Rom. 12: 6, Ἔχοντες δὲ χαρίσματα κατα τὴν χάριν τὴν δοϑεῖσαν ἡμῖν διά- 
goo ....all spoken of the miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit, and 


148 § 23. INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 


characterized by the same shade of thought, viz. the various or different 
gifts of this nature distributed by him, 


Heb. 2: 8, Πάντα ὑπέταξας ὑποχάτω τῶν ποδῶν αὐτοῦ. 
- , Υ c ' - c ‘ 1 , > - 
1 Cor. 15: 97, Πάντα γὰρ ὑπέταξεν ὑπὸ τοὺς πόδας αὑτοῦ. 
9 SEN) Aa c ’ ξ fe. ΒΝ ‘ , 2 ~ 
Eph. 1 : 22, Kot πάντα ὑπέταξεν ὕπο τοὺς πόδας αὑτοῦ. 
Phil. 3: 21, Ὑποτάξαι ἑαυτῷ τὰ πάντα" .... phraseology applied to 
designate the sovereignty conferred upon Christ, and found only in Paul 
and in our epistle. 


Heb. 9: 10, Δι᾿ ὃν τὰ πάντα, καὶ Ov” ov τὰ πάντα. 

Rom. 11: 36, ἘΞ αὑτοῦ, καὶ δι᾿ αὐτοῦ, καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν τὰ πάντα. 

Col. 1: 10, Τὸ πάντα δι᾿ αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτόν. 

1 Cor. 8: 6, Εἷς Geog... . . ἐξ οὗ τὰ πάντα" καὶ εὶς Κύριος. ἐπ OF OU 
τὰ πάντα" .... a method of expression employed to designate God as the 
author of all things, and also as the lord and possessor of them, which is 
appropriate to Paul and to our epistle. 


Heb. Di 14, Ἵνα «οὖν καταργήσῃ TOY TO κράτος ἔχοντα τοῦ ϑανάτου, 
τοῦτ᾽ ἔστι τὸν διάβολον. 

Ω Tim. 1:10, Καταργήσαντος μὲν τὸν ϑάνατον. Καταργέω, employed 
in the sense of abolishing, rendering null, is exclusively Pauline. No other 
writer of the New Testament employs it at all, except Luke ; and he but 
once, and then in quite a different sense from that attached to it by Paul, 
Luke 13: 7. 


Heb. 2: 16, Σπέρματος ᾿Αβραάμ, to designate Christians. 

Gal. 3: 29, Ei δὲ bust ig Χριστοῦ, ἄρα τοῦ ᾿Αβραὰμ σπέρμα ἐστέ. 

Gal. 3: 7, OL e ἐκ πίστεως, οὗτοί εἰσιν υἱοὶ ᾿Αβραάμ. 

Rom. 4: 16, ᾿Αβραὰμ, ὅς ἐστι πατὴρ πάντων ἡμῶν. 

The appellation seed or sons of Abraham, applied to designate Christians, 
is found only in Paul and in our epistle. 


Heb. 3: 1, Κλήσεως ἐπουρανίου. 
Phil. 3: 14, Τῆς ἄνω κλήσεως τοῦ ϑεοῦ. 
Rom. 11: 29, Ἧ κλῆσις τοῦ ϑεοῦ. The phrase heavenly or divine call- 


ing, applied to designate the proffered mercies of the gospel, is limited to 
Paul and to our epistle. 


Heb. 4: 12, Ζῶν γὰρ ὃ λόγος τοῦ Geod.... καὶ τομώτερος ὑπὲρ πᾶσαν 
μάχαιραν δίστομον. 

Eph. 6: 17, Τὴν μάχαιραν τοῦ πνεύματος, ὃ ἐστι ὁῆμα ϑεοῦ. ‘The com- 
parison of the word of God to a sword, is found only in Paul and in our 
epistle. 


Heb. 5: 8, Καίπερ ὧν υἱὸς, ἕμαϑεν ap ὧν ἔπαϑε τὴν ὑπακοήν. 

Phil. 2: 8, ᾿Εταπείνωσεν ἑαυτὸν, γενόμενος ὑπήκοος, μέχρι ϑανάτου. The 
idea of obedience in the humiliation and sufferings of Christ, constitutes the 
speciality and the similitude of these two passages. 


§23. INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 149 


Heb. 5: 18, Ninos γάρ ἐστι, i. 6. a child in religion, comparatively igno- 
rant, uninformed. 

1 Cor. 3: 1, Ὡς γηπίοις ἐν Χριστῷ, in the same sense. 

Eph. 4: 14, Ἵνα μηκέτι ὦμεν γήπιοι, in the same. 

Rom. 2: 20, “ιδάσκαλον νηπίων, in the same. 

Gal. 4: 3, Ὅτε ἡμεν νήπιοι, in the same. This phraseology is limited to 
Paul and to our epistle. y 


Heb. 5: 14, Τελείων δὲ ἐστιν ἢ στερεὰ τροφή. 

1 Cor. 14: 20, Ταῖς δὲ φρεσὶ τέλειοι γίνεσϑε. The word τέλειοι is here 
the antithesis of γήπιοι, and means well-instructed, mature. In this sense, 
it is employed only in Paul and in our epistle. 

Heb. 6: 1, Τελειότητα, an advanced, mature state, i. 6. of Christian know- 
ledge. 

Col. 3: 14, Σύνδεσμος τῆς τελειότητος, the bond or cement of a mature 
Christian state. ‘The word τελειότης, in such a sense, is limited to Paul 
and to our epistle. 


Heb. 6: 3, ᾿Εάνπερ ἐπιτρέπῃ ὃ ϑεός. 
1 Cor. 16: 7, ᾿Εὰν ὃ Κύριος ἐπιτρέπῃ" ....a phrase no where else 
employed. 


Heb. 6:10, Τῆς ἀγάπης ἧς ἐνεδείξασϑε εἰς τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ, διακονήσαντες 
τοῖς ἁγίοις καὶ διακονοῦντες. 

2 Cor. 8: 24, Τὴν οὖν ἔνδειξιν τῆς ἀγάπης ὑμῶν... . εἰς αὐτοὺς ἐνδείξα- 
ots, The similarity consists in employing ἐν δείειευ oa τὴν ἀγάπην in both 
cases, constructed with εἰς before the object that follows. 


Heb. 8: 5, Οἵτινες ὑποδείγματι καὶ σκιᾷ λατρεύουσι τῶν ἐπουρανίων. 

Heb. 10: 1, Σχιὰν γὰρ ἔχων ὃ γόμος τῶν μελλόντων. 

Col. 3: 17, “A ἐστι σκιὰ τῶν μελλόντων... . language respecting the 
figurative nature of the Jewish dispensation, ΠΕ is appropriate to Paul 
and to our epistle. 


Heb. 8: 6, Κρείττωνός ἐστι ya μεσίτης. 

. Πα θν. 5. Εἷς μεσίτης ... . Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς. 

Gal. 3: 19, 20, Ἔν χειρὶ τ Ὅ δὲ μεσίτης ἐνὸς οὐκ ἔστι. 

The word mediator, applied to designate Christ, or Moses, is appropri- 
ate to Paul and to our epistle. 


Heb. 8:10, Kai ἔσομαι αὐτοῖς εἰς ϑεὸν, καὶ αὐτοὶ ἔσονταί μοι εἰς λαόν, 

2 Cor. 6: 16, Καὶ ἔσομαι αὐτῶν ϑεὸς, καὶ αὐτοὶ ἔσονταί μοι λαός. 

Both passages are quoted from the Old Testament. The resemblance 
consists in the quotation and application of the same passage in the same 
manner, in both places. 


Heb. 8: 10, Καὶ ἐ ἐπὶ ἡ καρδίας, αὐτῶν ἐπιγράψω αὐτούς. 

Rom. 2:15, Τὸ ἔργον τοῦ γόμου γραπτὸν ἐν ταὶς καρδίαις αὐτῶν. 

2 Cor. 8: 9, ᾿Εγγεγραμμένη... εν, ἐν πλαξὶ καρδίας σαρκίναις. 

The passage in Hebrews is a quotation. But the other passages serve 


160 § 23. INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 


to show that such a phraseology was familiar to Paul, and that he proba- 
bly derived it from the Old Testament passage quoted in Heb. 8: 10. 


Heb. 9:15, Θανάτου γενομένου εἰς ἀπολύτρωσιν τῶν ἐπὲ τῇ πρώτῃ δια- 
ϑήκῃ παραβάσεων. 

Rom. 3: 25, Διὰ τῆς ἀπολυτρώσεως... «εἰς ἔνδειξιν τῆς δικαιοσύνης αὐτοῦ, 
διὰ τὴν πάρεσιν τῶν προγεγονότων ἁμαρτημάτων. 

In these two passages the peculiar idea is expressed, that the efficacy 
of Christ’s atoning blood extends back to past ages ; an idea no where 
else brought to view in the same manner. 


Heb. 10: 19, Ἔχοντες..... παῤῥησίαν εἰς τὴν εἴσοδον τῶν ἁγίων ἐν τῷ αἵ- 
ματι Ἰησοῦ. Ἴ 

Rom. 5:2, du” οὗ τὴν προσαγωγὴν ἐσχήκαμεν τῇ πίστει εἰς τὴν χάριν 
ταύτην. 

Eph. 9: 18, Δι αὐτοῦ ἔχομεν τὴν πφοσαγωγὴν « ες πρὸς τὸν πατέρα. 

Eph. 8: 19, Ἐν ᾧ ἔχομεν τὴν παῤῥησίαν καὶ τὴν ν προσαγωγὴν ἐν πεποι-- 
ϑήσει. 

The idea of access to God, or παῤῥησία, bold, free access, or liberty of ad- 
dress, is designated in this manner only by Paul and in our epistle. 


Heb. 10 : 28, *Exi δυσὶν ἢ ἢ τρισὶ μάρτυσιν ἅπο ϑνήσκει. 

2 Cor.13:1, “Ext στόματος δύο μυρτύρων καὶ τριῶν σταϑήσεται πᾶν 
ῥῆμα. 

1 Tim. 5: 19, Ent δύο ἢ τριῶν μαρτύρων. Such an expression is found 
elsewhere only in the words of Christ, Matt. 18: 16. 


Heb. 10: 30, Zuot ἐκδίκησις, ἐγὼ ἀνταποδώσω. 

Rom. 12: 19, Ἐμοὶ ξχδίκησις, ἐγὼ ἀνταποδώσω. 

The similarity consists in quoting the same passage, in translating it de 
novo from the Hebrew in the same way, and applying it to show that 
punishment is the awful prerogative of the Deity, and that he will in- 
flict it. 


Heb. 10: 32 » 4ϑλησιν.. . τῶν ᾿ παϑημάτων. 

Phil. 1: 30, Τὸν αὐτὸν ἀγῶνα ἔχοντες, οἵον εἴδετε ἐν ἐμοί. 

Col. 2: 1, Ἡλίκον ἀγῶνα ἔχω περὶ ὑμῶν. 

1 Thess. 2: 2, Aahjoow ...t0 εὐαγγέλιον... ἐν πολλῷ ἀγῶνι. 

The phrase contest, in respect to eicuone, is peculiar to Paul and to 
our epistle. 


Heb. 10 : 33, Ονειδισμοὶς te καὶ ϑλίψεσι ϑεατριζύμενοι. 
1 Cor. 4: 9, Θέατρον ἐγενήϑημεν τῶ κόσμῳ, x. τ. 1.... language peculiar 
to Paul and to our epistle. 


Heb. 10: 33, Κοινωνοὶ τῶν οὕτως ἀναστρεφομένων γενηϑέντες, participa- 
ting, i. e. sympathizing, with the afflicted. 

Phil. 4: 14, Συγκοινωνήσαντές μου τῇ ϑλέίψει, sympathizing in my afflic- 
tion. The same figurative expression stands in bath passages. 


§ 23. INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 151 


— = .--.........Ὁ0ὉῸὈὔῸὈὉ.- Πρὖᾷ9ῦῸ΄ὖῦὖῦϑν..ν...... ....- ὁ ὅ ΄ Ζ 6 


Heb. 10: 38, Ὃ δὲ δίκαιος ἐκ πίστεως ζήσεται. 

Rom. 1: 17, Ὁ δὲ δίκαιος ἐκ πίστεως ζήσεται. 

Gal. 3: 11, Ὅτι ὃ δίκαιος ἐκ πίστεως ζήσεται. 

The passage is a quotation. But the application and use of it appear 
to be exclusively Pauline. In all the instances it is of the same form, 
and it differs in some measure both from the Septuagint and the He- 
brew. 


Heb. 12: 1, Τρέχωμεν tov προκείμενον ἡμῖν ἀγῶνα. 

1 Cor. 9: 24, Οὕτω τρέχετε ἵνα καταλάβητε. 

Phil. 3: 14, Ta μὲν ὀπίσω ἐπιλανθανόμενος, τοῖς δὲ ἔμπροσϑεν ἐπεκτεινό-. 
μενος, κατὰ σχοπὸν διώκω. 

The resemblance here is, that Christian efforts are in each passage com- 
pared to a race ; a comparison found only in Paul and in our epistle. 


Heb. 18 : 18, Πεποίϑαμεν γὰρ, ὅτι χαλὴν συνείδησιν ἔ ἔχομεν. 
Acts 23: 1, Paul says, Ἐγὼ πάσῃ συνειδήσει ἀγαϑῆῇ πεπολίτευμαι". ... ἃ 
manner of speaking found no where else. 


Heb. 13 : 20, Ὃ δὲ ϑεὸς τῆς εἰρήνης. 

Rom. 15 : 33, Ὁ δὲ ϑεὸς τῆς εἰρήνης. Also in Rom. 16: 90. 1 Cor. 14: 
33. 2 Cor. 13:11. Phil. 4:9. 1 Thess. 5:23; an expression used by 
no other writer of the New Testament. 


Heb. 13: 18, ZoocetysoFe περὶ ἡμῶν. 

1 Thess. 5: 25, Προσεύχεσϑε περὶ ἡμῶν. 

Natural as this may appear, at the close of a letter, it is peculiar to Paul 
and to our epistle. 


To the instances of phraseology thus collected, may be added the greet- 
ing and benediction at the close of the epistle to the Hebrews, which is 
altogether Pauline. 


If. Words which are found, among the New Testament writers, only in Paul and in our epistle ; 
or, if found elsewhere, are used in asense different from that in which they are here employed. 


’Ayoy, in the sense of Christian effort, either in performing duties, or 
bearing trials, Heb. 12:1. 1 Tim. 6:12. 2 Tim. 4:7. ᾿Αδελφοί, brethren 
of Christ, considered in respect to his human nature, Heb. 2: 12, 17. 
Rom. 8: 29, ᾿Αδόκιμος, inept, unfit, Heb. 6: 8. Tit. 1:16. “Arde, rever- 
ence, modesty, Heb. 12: 28. 1Tim.2:9. Atgéouos, to choose, Heb. 11 : 25. 
2 Thess. 2:13. Phil. 1:22. ἄκακος, innocent, Heb. 7: 26. Rom. 16: 18. 
᾿Ασϑένεια, sin, sinful infirmity, Heb. 5: 2. Ro. 5:6. 4διαϑήκη, will, 
testament, Heb. 9: 16. Gal. 3:15. It may be doubtful, perhaps, whether 
διαϑήκη has the sense of testament in the latter passage. ᾿Ελπίς προκεχει- 
μένη, proffered Christian happiness, Heb. 6:18, Col. 1:5. “Exiva, to be 
despondent, Heb, 12. 3. Gal. 6:9. ᾿Ενδυναμόω, to give strength ; (passive- 
ly) to receive strength, Heb. 11:34. 2 Tim. 4:17. 1 Tim. 1:12, Ka- 
ταργεῖν, to annul, abolish, abrogate, Heb. 2: 14. Rom.3:3, 31. 6:6. 1 Cor. 


152 ee INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 


1: 98. Gal. δ: 11, und cleegatous often in i Bilia pistons ΠΌΘΟΝ glo- 
rying, rejoicing, Heb. 3:6. Rom. 4: ὦ. 1 Cor. 9:15. Κληρονόμος, lord, 
possessor, applied to Christ, Heb. 1: ὦ, Rom.8: 17. ἄς τ (δουλεύειν 
asynonyme) ϑεῷ ζῶντι, Heb.9: 14. 1 Thess. 1:9. ,7ὴ (οὐ ) δλεπόμενα, 
the invisible objects of a future world, Heb. 11: 1. 2 Cor. 4:18. “Ouohoyiv, 
religion, religious or Christian profession, Heb. 3:1. 4: 14. 10:23. 2 
Cor. 9:13. "Ovoua, majesty or dignity, Heb. 1:4. Phil. 2:9, 10. Eph. 
1:21. But although this sense of ὄνομα in Heb. 1: 4, is adopted by some 
eminent critics, still it seems to me more probable that it has the sense of 
appellation ; see Heb. 1: 5, seq. Ov κτίσις, nothing, Heb. 4: 13, Rom. 8: 
39, Τελειόω, to consummate in happiness, to bestow the reward consequent on 
finishing a victorious course, Heb. 2:10. 7:28. 10:14. Phil. 3: 12. 
“Ὑπόστασις, confidence, Heb. 3: 14. 11:1. 2 Cor.9: 4. 11:17. Ἱηρουσα- 
λὴμ ἐπουράνιος, the abode of the blessed, Heb. 12: 22, comp. ἹἸηρουσαλὴμ 
ἄνω, Gal. 4: 26, in the like sense. 


111. Peculiarity of grammatical construction in regard to the use of the passive verb instead of 
the active. 


Thus in Heb. 7: 11, we find the phrase ὃ λαὸς γὰρ ἐπ᾿ αὐτῇ νενομοϑέ- 
tto, for the people under it [the Levitical priesthood] received the law ; 
where the Nominative case of the person whois the object (not the subject) 
in the sentence, is joined with the passive of the verb: and this mode of 
construction is employed instead of the active voice of the same verb fol- 
lowed by the Dative of the person who is the object ; 6. δ. νενομοϑέτητο λαῷ. 

The like construction is found in Paul’s acknowledged writings. ΕἸ g. 
Rom. 3: 2, ὅτι [αὐτοὶ] ἐπιστεύϑησαν τὰ λόγια tov Feov, they were entrusted 
with the oracles of God, instead of saying the oracles of God were entrusted to 
them. Rom. 6: 17—sic ὃν παρεδόϑητε τύπον διδαχῆς, into which model of 
doctrine ye have been delivered, instead of, which form ο or model of doctrine 
was delivered to you. 1'Tim. 1:11, ὃ ἐπιστεύϑην ἐγώ, with which I was 
entrusted, instead of, which was entr sisted to me, 0 ἐπιστεύϑη μοι. 

This is a minuteness of grammatical construction, which a copyist of 
Paul would not be likely either to notice or to imitate. It affords, there- 
fore, the more striking evidence that all proceeded from the same hand. 

Finally, Paul frequently employs an adjective of the neuter gender, in 
order to designate generic quality, instead of using a synonymous noun; 
6. g. τὸ γνωστόν, Rom. 1: Be τὸ χρηστόν, Rom. 2: 4; τὸ περισσόν, Rom. 
3:1; τὸ δυνατόν, Rom. 9: 22; τὸ ἀδύνατον, Rom. 7: 9; τὸ ἀσϑενές, 1 
Cor. 1: 20. Compare τὸ ἀμετάϑετον, Heb. 6: 17; τὸ τ ρ Heb. 
12: 21; τὸ κωλόν, 12: 18. 


§ 24. Remarks on the comparisons made in the preceding sections. 


In the first place, without any hesitation, I concede thus much to those 
critics, who make light of the evidence drawn from such a comparison as has 
now been made, viz. that no evidence of this nature can ever afford what 
is equivalent to a demonstration of the fact, for the support of which it is 


ᾧ 24. INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 153 


adduced. But then, demonstration is what such a case neither admits 
nor demands. If the writer’s name were affixed to the epistle, it would 
not amount to proof of this kind ; for might it not have been put there by 
another person, in order to answer some designs of his own? Nay, un- 
less witnesses have given us testimony, who themselves saw Paul write 
the epistle, the proof is not of the highest kind that is possible ; nor even 
then would their testimony establish the fact, unless we could be well as- 
sured of their credibility. By such a criterion, however, the genuineness 
of no writing, ancient or modern, can be examined. It is generally 
enough for us, that an author’s name is affixed to a writing. Prima facie 
it is evidence that it belongs to him; and it must be regarded as sufficient 
evidence, until it is contradicted either expressly, or by implication. 

Let us suppose now, that after an author has published many pieces 
and his style and sentiments have become well known, he publishes a 
composition of any kind without affixing his name to it; can there be 
no adequate, no satisfactory evidence, that it belongs to him ? 

This is the very question before us. J grant that similarity or even 
sameness of sentiment, in different pieces, does not certainly prove identity 
of authorship ; for the friends, or imitators, or disciples of any distin- 
guished man, may imbibe the same sentiments which he inculcates, and 
exhibit them in similar words and phrases. I grant that the primitive 
teachers of Christianity were agreed, and must have been agreed, (sup- 
posing that they were under divine guidance), as to the fundamental doc- 
trines of the gospel. But in respect to the mode of representing them ; in 
regard to the style, and diction, and urgency with which particular views 
of doctrine are insisted on ; what can be more various and diverse than 
the epistles of Paul, and James, and Peter, and John ? 

The reply to this, by critics who entertain sentiments different from 
those which I have espoused, is, that ‘the writer of the epistle to the He- 
brews was an intimate friend, or a studious imitator of Paul; a man of 
talents, who, with unqualified admiration of the apostle’s sentiments, mode 
of reasoning, and even choice of words, closely imitated him in all these 
particulars. Hence the similarity between the writings of Paul and the 
epistle to the Hebrews.’ 

The possibility of this cannot be denied. Designed imitation has, in a 
few instances, been so successful as to deceive, at least for a while, the 
most sharp sighted critics. Witness the imitation of Shakspeare which a 
few years ago was palmed upon the English public, as the work of that 
distinguished poet himself. But after all, such attempts have very seldom 
been successful, even where the most strenuous efforts have been made 
at close imitation; and these, with all the advantages which a modern 
education could afford. How few, for example, of the multitudes who 
have aimed at copying the style of Addison or Johnson with the greatest 
degree of exactness, have succeeded even in any tolerable measure ; and 
none in such a way, that they are not easily distinguished from the mod- 
els which they designed to imitate. 

Just so it was in the primitive age of the church. The Christian world 
was filled with gospels and epistles, ascribed to Paul, and Peter, and 
other apostles and disciples. Yet no one of these succeeded in gaining 


20 


154 § 24. INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 


any considerable credit among the churches ; and what little was ever 
gained by any of them, proved to be temporary and of very small influ- 
ence. This was not owing to want of exertion; for strenuous efforts 
were made by writers to imitate the apostolic manner of writing, so as to 
gain credit for their supposititious pieces. But all of them failed. In- 
deed, nothing can be more egregious or striking than the failure. A 
comparison of any of the apocryphal writings of the New Testament, with 
the genuine writings of the same, shewsa difference heaven-wide between 
them, which the most undistinguishing intellect can hardly fail to discern, 

If then the writer of the epistle to the Hebrews was an imitator, a de- 
signed and close imitator, of the apostle Paul, he has succeeded in such 
a way as no other writer of those times, or of any succeeding ones, ever 
did. He has produced a composition, the sentiments of which in their shade, 
and colouring, and proportion, (so far as his subjects are common with 
those in the acknowledged epistles of Paul), are altogether Pauline. Nay, 
he has preserved not only the order of writing which Paul adopts, but 
his mode of reasoning, his phraseology, and even his choice of peculiar 
words, or words used in a sense peculiar to the apostle. The imitation 
goes so far, it extends to so many particulars, important and unimportant, 
that, if our epistle was not written by Paul, it must have been an imitation 
of him which was the effect of settled design, and was accomplished only 
by the most strenuous effort. 

But here, while I acknowledge the possibility of such an imitation, I 
must from thorough conviction say, that the probability of it does seem to 
be very small. With Origen, I must, after often repeated study of this 
epistle, say, T'he sentiments are wonderful, and in no way behind those of the 
acknowledged writings of the apostles, τὰ νοήματα τὴς ἐπιστολῆς θαυμάσιά 
ἐστι, καὶ οὐ δευτέρα τῶν ἀποστολικῶν ὁμολογουμένων γραμμάτων, Euseb. Hist. 
Ecc. VI. 95, I cannot elsewhere find any higher intensity of mind; any 
more exalted conceptions of the true nature of Christianity, as a spzritual re- 
ligion; any higher views of God and Christ, or of the Christian’s privileges 
and his obligations to believe in, love, and obey the Saviour; any more 
noble excitements to pursue the Christian course, unawed by the threats 
and unallured by the temptations of the world; or any so awful repre- 
sentations of the fearful consequences of unbelief and of defection from 
Christianity. The man who wrote this epistle, has no marks of a_plagi- 
arist or of an imitator about him. Nothing can be more free and original 
than his thoughts, reasonings, and mode of éxpressing them. It is most 
evident, that they flow directly and warm from the heart. They are 
“thoughts that breathe, and words that burn.” Where in all the ancient 
world did ever a plagiarist or an imitator write in this manner? A man 
who could form suclr conceptions in his mind, who could reason and ex- 
hort in such an impressive and awful manner, has he any need of imitat- 
ing—even Paul himself? No; it may be said of him, (what Paul on an- 
other occasion said of himself in comparison with his brethren), that “ he 
was not a whit behind the very chiefest of the apostles.” 

Then how could such a man be concealed, in the first ages of the 
church, when the memory of those who were very distinguished has been 
preserved so distinct, and with so much care and reverence, by ecclesias- 


§ 24. INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 155 


tical tradition? Men who can write in this manner, cannot remain con- 
cealed any where. And the writer of such an epistle, it would seem, 
must have acted a part not less conspicuous than that of the great apos- 
‘tle of the Gentiles himself. 

But antiquity, we are told, has attributed this epistle to distinguished 
men in the early church, to Clement of Rome, to Luke, or to Barnabas, 
each of whom is known to have been the warm friend and admirer of Paul. 

I know this has been often alleged. But fortunately there are extant 
writings of each of these persons, with which our epistle may be com- 
pared ; and which serve to shew how little foundation there is for such 
an opinion. But of this more hereafter. I merely say, at present, that 
the great body of critics, for some time past, have agreed in rejecting 
the opinion which ascribes our epistle to either of the authors just men- 
tioned. 

Who then did write it, if Paul did not? And what is to be gained, by 
endeavouring to shew the possibility that some other person wrote it, 
when so many circumstances unite in favour of the general voice of the 
primitive ages, that this apostle was the author? That the church, dur- 
ing the first century of the apostolic age, ascribed it to some one of the 
apostles, is clear from the fact that it was inserted among the canonical 
books of the churches in the East and the West; that it was comprised 
in the Peshito ; in the old Latin version; and was certainly admitted by 
the Alexandrine and Palestine churches. Now what apostle did write it, 
if Paul did not? Surely neither John, nor Peter, nor James, nor Jude. 
The difference of style is too striking between their letters and this, to 
admit of such a supposition. But what other apostle, except Paul, was 
ever distinguished in the ancient church as a writer? None; and the 
conclusion therefore seems to be altogether a probable one, that he was 
the writer. Why should all the cireumstances which speak for him, be 
construed as relating to some unknown writer? Are the sentiments un- 
worthy of him? Are they opposed to what he has inculcated? Do they 
differ from what he has taught? Neither. Why not then admit the 
probability that he was the author? Nay, why not admit that the proba- 
bility is as great as the nature of the case, (the epistle beimg anonymous), 
could be expected to afford ? Why should there be any more objection to 
Paul as the author of this epistle, than to any other man ἢ 

My own conviction, (if I may be permitted to express it), is as clear in 
respect to this point, as from its nature I could expect it to be. I began 
the examination of the subject unbiassed, if I was ever unbiassed in the 
examination of any question, and the evidence before me has led me to 
such a result. 

But the arguments which are urged against the opinion that I have 
now endeavoured to defend, remain to be examined. They must not 
be passed over in silence, nor any of them be kept out of sight to which 
importance can reasonably be attached. 


156 ᾧ 25. opsEcTIONs. 


§ 25. Objections. 


The objections made to the opinion that Paul was the author of our 
epistle, are numerous. ΑἹ] the hints which ancient writers have given by 
way of objection, have been brought forward of late, and urged with great 
zeal and ability. Arguments internal and external of every kind have 
been insisted on. Indeed, the attack upon the Pauline origin of our epis- 
tle has been so warmly and powerfully made, by many of the last and 
present generation of critics on the continent of Europe, that most who 
are engaged in the study of sacred literature, seem inclined to think that 
the contest is over and that victory has been won. So much at least 
must be conceded, viz. that those who admit the Pauline origin of this 
epistle, must make more strenuous efforts than they have yet made, in 
order to defend their opinion and to satisfy objectors. To do this, is in- 
deed a most laborious, and in many cases exceedingly repulsive task ; for 
of such a nature are many of the objections, thrown out at random, and 
asserted with confidence, that an attack which cost but a few moments’ 
effort on the part of the assailant, requires days and weeks of labour on 
the part of him who makes defence. 

The question, however, is too important to be slightly treated. Nor 
will it suffice for those who defend the Pauline origin of our epistle, merely 
to select a few specimens of argument on the part of their opponents, and, 
shewing the insufficiency or inaccuracy of these, make their appeal to the 
reader’s sympathies, assuring him that the rest of the arguments employed 
by their opponents is of a similar nature. There are readers, (and such 
are the men whose opinion on subjects of this nature are most to be val- 
ued), who will not be satisfied with cursory, hasty, half-performed exam- 
ination ; and who, when you show them that one or more of an oppo- 
nent’s arguments is unsound, will not believe it to follow of course that all 
of them must be so. Above all one must expect, that many doubters of 
the genuineness of our epistle will not be satisfied with having only one 
side of the question presented. It is reasonable that they should not; 
and if the objections which have weight in their minds, cannot be as sat- 
isfactorily answered as from the nature of the case might be justly ex- 
pected, then let them have so much weight as is properly due to them. 

It is but fair to warn the reader, that in entering on this part of our 
subject, his patience will be tried by the length and minuteness of the 
examination. Perhaps those only who fully know the present state of 
critical effort and opinion with respect to the literature of our epistle, will 
be able to find an adequate apology for such particularity as the sequel 
exhibits. But such probably will feel, that the time has come, when ob- 
jections must either be fully and fairly met, or those who defend the 
Pauline origin of our epistle must consent to give up their opinion, if they 
would preserve the character of candour. The present leaning of criti- 
cism is strongly against this origin; and the subject ought to receive am- 
ple discussion. 

Whether the question at issue has been deeply, fundamentally, and 
patiently examined, by the principal writers who have given a tone to the 


ᾧ 20. OBJECTIONS BY BERTHOLDT. 157 


present voice of critics, I will not venture either to affirm or to deny. I 
shall leave it to the reader, when he shall have gone through with an ex- 
amination of these writers, to speak his own feelings. 


896. Objections by Bertholdt considered. 


Bertholdt has collected and embodied all the objections made by pre- 
vious writers, which are worthy of particular consideration, in his Intro- 
duction to the books of the Old and New Testament. To these he has 
added some, which apparently were originated by himself. I shall briefly 
state his objections ; subjoining to each, as 1 proceed, such remarks as 
the nature of the case may seem to demand, I shall aJso remark, at the 
same time, and for the sake of brevity and order, on the opinions of later 
writers respecting the several topics discussed, whenever occasion renders 
this expedient. The reader will thus have, in one view, the whole sub- 
ject placed before him. 

(1) ‘It is a suspicious circumstance, and against the opinion that Paul 
wrote the epistle to the Hebrews, that he has not subscribed his name; 
since he says in 2 Thess. 3: 17, that it was his practice to do this, in order 
to shew that letters purporting to be his, might thus be certainly known 
to be genuine.’ 

The reply to this is obvious. After Paul had written his first epistle to 
the Thessalonian church, in which he had mentioned the second coming 
of Christ, it appears that some one had written another letter, counterfeit- 
ing his name, in which the day of the Lord had been represented as very 
near. On this account Paul says, in his second letter to the same church, 
“ Be not agitated by any message, or by any epistle as from me, in respect 
to the day of the Lord as being already at hand, 2: 2.” And then, to avoid 
the effects in future of any misrepresentation of this nature, he says at the 
close of the letter, 3: 17, “This salutation from me, Paul, by my own 
hand. This is the proof [viz. of the genuineness of my letter] in every 
epistle [i. 6. to your church]; so I write.” Let it now be noted, that the 
epistles to the Thessalonians were the first, in regard to time, which Paul 
wrote to any church; at least, the first that are now extant. Under cir- 
cumstances like these, when letters to the 'Thessalonians had been forged 
in his name, can the assurance that he subscribes all his letters to them 
with his own hand, be taken as a satisfactory proof, that in all his future 
life he should never address an anonymous letter to any church in any 
circumstances? Nay, can it in itself be any proof at all, that Paul 
would adopt the same custom in respect to all the letters which he might 
afterwards address to other churches? As this was only the second of 
his letters now extant, can any conclusion at all be drawn from it as to the 
rest in general, such as Bertholdt draws? It would be extraordinary, if 
in writing to a church where forged letters of his had been in circulation, 
the assuring them that he should put his name with his own hand to all 
his own letters addressed. to them in future, should be appealed to as a 
proof that he must always do the same in all circumstances, and that he 
never should, on any occasion, write an anonymous epistle. 


158 § 26. opsECTIONS BY BERTHOLDT. 


(2) ‘No good reason can be given why Pau! should conceal his name. 
Does he not intimate at the close of the letter, that he is yet in prison, but 
expects soon to be set at liberty P Does he not ask their prayers that he 
may be speedily restored? And does he not promise them a visit in 
eompany with Timothy, if his return be speedy? Why should Paul 
attempt to conceal himself, when he has developed circumstances which 
evidently imply that he was not concealed, and that he did not desire to 
be so ?’ 

But if this objection be of any validity, it is just as valid in respect to 
any other person, as to the writer of this letter. Why should any other 
writer attempt to conceal himself, when most clearly the tenor of the let- 
ter implies, that he must be known to those whom he immediately ad- 
dresses? If there be any incongruity here, it applies just as much to any 
other writer as to Paul. 

But is there no good reason imaginable, why Paul should have with- 
held his name? If he designed the epistle to be a circular among the 

‘Jews generally, (which from the nature of the discussion, comprising 
topics so interesting to them all, I am altogether inclined to believe was 
the case), then might he not, as a measure of prudence, omit prefixing or 
subscribing his name directly, lest the prejudices of those Christians who 
were zealous for the law might be excited, on the first inspection of his 
epistle ? Ultimately he might be and must be known, if the letter was 
traced back to the church to whom it was first sent, and the inquiries 
made respecting it, which the circumstances mentioned at the close of it 
would naturally suggest. To this the writer would probably feel no 
objection ; trusting that the arguments suggested in it might disarm prej- 
udiced readers, before they came to the certain knowledge of the author. 
Is it an unknown, unheard of case, that men should write letters anony- 
mously at first, but afterwards avow them? Or that they should write” 
letters anonymous, but so circumstanced, and designedly so circumstanced, 
that inquiry might ultimately lead to a knowledge of the author ? 

Granting, however, that neither the reason of Clement of Alexandria, 
nor of Eusebius, nor of Jerome, nor the reason now given, for the apos- 
tle’s withholding his name, is satisfactory ; still, is there no possibility that 
an adequate reason may have existed, why the letter should be sent without 
the subscription of the writer’s name, of which reason we are ignorant ? 
Let him be whoever he may that wrote the letter, does not the same dif- 
ficulty, in every case, attend the explanation of its being anonymous? I 
can see no difference; unless we assume the position, that the writer 
meant it should be attributed to an apostle, and therefore concealed his 
own name. Such a writer, we cannot with any probability suppose the 
author of our epistle to have been. All—all is sincerity ; fervent benevo- 
lence, ingenuous and open-hearted dealing pervade the whole. 

Besides, the case in hand is not one without a parallel. The first epis- 
tle of John is destitute of the author’s name, and has no inscription what- 
ever to any church or churches. Yet tradition and the internal state of 
the epistle, satisfy us that John was the author ; for, although this has been 
denied by some, it has been generally admitted. The fact that our epistle 
is anonymous, is not then a singular thing. Whyshould it be more won- 


ᾧ 26. OBJECTIONS BY BERTHOLDT. 159 


derful that Paul should write an anonymous letter, than that John should 
do it? 

Bleek (1. § 71) repeats and urges at length, against the Pauline origin 
of our epistle, the want of the usual salutation and of the author’s name. 
He objects to the reasons assigned for such omission, as being very un- 
satisfactory. ‘How could Paul expect, he inquires, ‘that the messenger 
who carried the epistle would conceal the author’s name? How could 
the apostle desire that he should? Or if the writer’s name was at first 
made known only to the officers of the church to whom the epistle was 
sent, what possibility was there of concealing it from others, who would 
of course demand it when the epistle was read? Then why not put his 
name at once to the epistle? And if he declined to do this, why should 
he not at least have given it a direction tb some particular church ? 
Above all, why should not all this be done, when it is most manifest, from 
Heb. 18: 18—23, that the writer was well known to his readers, and ex- 
pected to be at once recognized by them ? 

The answer to these considerations has already been virtually suggest- 
ed. If there be difficulties and even things inexplicable, on the supposi- 
tion that Paul wrote our epistle, they remain just the same in regard to 
any other writer as in respect to Paul; and if they prove any thing, they 
would go to prove that no consistent person, or one sanae mentis, wrote 
the epistle ; for how could he send an epistle without inscription or sub- 
scription? Yet we see that John did thus ; and we do not think it, after 
all, a very uncommon matter, that an epistle should be anonymous. 
How many adequate reasons, (adequate in the writer’s own judgment, 
and such as would be so in ours if we knew them), may have existed at 
the time when the epistle was written, for such a method of address, it is 
quite impossible for us now to determine. Less still can we determine, 
that there were no reasons of this nature. 

It is quite aside, then, from the basis of sound reasoning, to urge 
such an objection as this; above all tolay so much stress upon it as some 
recent critics have laid. They may, if they please, reject all the reasons 
which have yet been offered, to shew why our epistle is anonymous, yea, 
one may concede, if he will, that they have good reason to reject them 
all; yet this does not touch the point, whether the writer may not have 
had good reason in his own mind; nor whether Paul might not have 
such reasons; nor whether all the difficulties that are raised about the 
subject, do not lie as much against any other writer as against Paul. 

Steudel, Professor of Theology at Tiibingen, has endeavoured to ac- 
count for the want of inscription and subscription, by the suggestion that 
our epistle was at first only an essay, which was sent to some church by 
the author, in the state in which it was written, with the exception of a 
few sentences near the close that had an aspect of a personal nature ; 
(Bengel’s Archiv, IV. p. 87). But nothing seems plainer, than that the 
direct address in the second person plural, in mauy places of the epistle, 
must have been originally designed for a particular society or circle of 
readers ; consequently the first original object must have been local, al- 


- though the writer intended, as I apprehend, that his epistle should even- 
tually be encyclical. 


160 § 26. ΟΒΙΠΟΤΙΟΝΒ BY BERTHOLDY. 

In fine Hug suggests, that ‘the oratorical manner of the epistle may 
have induced the writer to commence it in the manner he has done, be- 
cause an inscription and salutation prefixed to it, would have detracted 
from the agreeableness of its manner and the strength of its impression, 
Kinleit. p. 4906. But this calculation seems to place the writer of our 
epistle too much in the light of a Grecian rhetorician, who with great 
care and nicety balanced and adjusted matters of taste in respect to ora- 
torical effect in writing—a thing which seems to me entirely foreign from 
the real character of our author. ‘There are, indeed, passages of genuine 
eloquence, yea, of the most touching, thrilling kind, in the epistle ; but 
they are the spontaneous result of feeling, not of art or calculation. 

Better is it, so far as I am able to judge, to disclaim at once our ability 
to offer a satisfactory reason why our epistle is anonymous, than to bring 
forward reasons which will not stand the test of investigation. 

Bleek, after examining and setting aside the suggestions of Steudel, 
Hug, and others, comes to the conclusion, that ‘if Paul had written our 
epistle he must by a kind of necessity have affixed his name to it, and in- 
serted his claim to a clear and certain knowledge of the principles of 
Christianity, communicated to him from heaven, and also professed a 
strong affection for the Hebrews, and his ardent desire for their salvation ; 
which he has done in his epistles to the Romans, Galatians, ete.’ p. 302. 
He even goes so far as to say, that ‘we may maintain with a pretty good 
degree of certainty, that such must have been the case, and that we can 
see no reason why Paul should have omitted to conciliate favour, and to 
gain a hearing in this way.’ But inasmuch as this is not done, he thinks 
it ‘a very weighty testimony that Paul was not the writer of our epistle ; 
even more weighty than the omission of the usual greeting at the com- 
mencement of the epistle.’ 

In regard, however, to the manifestations of affectionate feelings toward 
those whom the writer addressed, and in respect to his earnest desires for 
their salvation, I know not how it would be possible to give higher evi- 
dence than the epistle now in reality affords. Is there only one method, 
and that in the way of simple ‘affirmation, of exhibiting feelings of the 
kind in question? [ trust this will not be said ; and if not, then it cannot 
be said, that the writer of our epistle has not reached the highest point in 
offering real testimony of affection and concern. 

In regard to his claims to apostleship and extraordinary revelations, 
Paul has not made this in all his epistles ; he has made it apparently, only 
when it was called in question, and he was thus urged to enforce it. He 
has made it to churches planted by himself, who were witnesses of his 
apostolic gifts. But nothing can be plainer, than that the writer of our 
epistle did not stand in the relation of a bishop or overseer of those whom 
he addressed. His personal references, therefore, are few. And in such 
a case, is there any difficulty in supposing, that he would naturally think 
it expedient to forbear urging personal claims upon them ? 

After all, who will undertake to make it out, that circumstances now 
altogether unknown to us did not determine the mind of the writer, (and 
for good reasons determine it), to omit inscription, subscription, and al- 
so the urging of all personal authority and claims? It is impossible to 


ὃ 26. oBJECTIONS BY BERTHOLDT. 161 


make this out; it isimpossible even to render it in any degree probable 
that they did not. Occurrences of a similar nature happen at all times, 
in all countries, wherever circumstances of an arduous, difficult, danger- 
ous nature occur, where feeling is deeply concerned, and where prejudice 
is to be regarded and avoided. And such were the times of Paul; and 
such his relation to the Jews, and theirs to him. 

I dismiss this topic, then, with the full persuasion that arguments to 
prove that Paul could not, and did not write an anonymous letter, and that 
he had not an occasion to do this, in order to act prudently and wisely, 
most manifestly never can be adduced. ‘The utmost which can be said 
is, ‘We are not able to see any good reasons for such a course,’ This 
we may, if we please, fully concede ; but then, this is quite a different 
thing from the affirmation, that ‘such reasons never could have existed.’ 
The latter can never be proved, nor even rendered in any good degree 
probable. 

(3) ‘The Jews of Palestine had a great antipathy to Paul, and always 
persecuted him, when he came among them. How can it be supposed, 
that he should have addressed to them a letter, with the expectation that 
it would be read and regarded by them ?’ 

That some of the zealots for the law in Judea were strongly opposed 
to Paul, is sufficiently evident from the history of his visits to Jerusalem. 
But that the apostles and teachers there were his warm and decided 
friends, is equally evident from the same source. Moreover, that there 
were private Christians there, who cherished a very friendly feeling 
toward him, is evident from Acts 21:17, where, on his last visit there, 
the brethren, (ot ἀδελφοί) are said to have received him gladly. The perse- 
cution which ensued at this time, was first excited, as the historian ex- 
pressly states, by Jews from Asia Minor, 21:27. But it is unnecessary 
to dwell on this, At Ptolemais, 21:7, and at Cesarea, 21: 8 seq., he had 
warm friends ; and at the latter place, he abode two whole years asa 
prisoner, before his removal to Rome. Were there no friends of his 
then in Palestine, among whem he could hope to find a listening ear ? 
No Christians, on whom he could hope that his arguments would make 
an impression ? And after all, did he ever cease to speak to the Jews, 
to admonish them, to dispute with them, in order to vindicate the religion 
which he had embraced, because they were prejudiced against him ? 
How unlike himself, then, does the objection which we are considering 
represent Paul to be! He did not confer with flesh and blood ; he believed 
that the armour in which he was clad, was “ mighty, through God, to the 
pulling down of strong holds.” 

(4) ‘ But there is internal evidence, from the style of the epistle to the 
Hebrews, and from circumstances mentioned in it, which render it im- 
possible to believe that Paul was the author of it.’ 

This objection is a very ancient one. It was felt, as we have seen, by 
Clement of Alexandria ; deeper still, by Origen ; and adverted to by Eu- 
sebius, and other fathers of the church. It would seem that there must be 
some real foundation for an objection, so long, so often, and so confidentl 
urged. Late critics have attributed an irresistible power to it. Eichhorn 
and Bertholdt maintain, that it lies so upon the very face of the whole 

21 


162 § 26. opsJECTIONS BY BERTHOLDT. 


epistle, that every reader must be impressed with it. So strong indeed 
are their impressions with respect to it, that they seem to require no oth- 
er argument, in order to satisfy them that Paul could not have written the 
epistle to the Hebrews. 

That there are cases, where the general character of the style of one 
piece, is so plainly different from that of another, as to leave no doubt on 
the mind of a discerning reader that both did not, nay even could not 
come from the same pen, certainly cannot be called in question. Who 
could ever attribute the epistles of John, to Paul, or to Peter, or to James ? 
But that there are other cases, where the characteristic marks are not so 
discernible, and about which there may be a great difference of feeling in 
respect to the style, is well known. For example; the book of Deuter- 
onomy is ascribed by one set of critics, of high acquisitions and refined 
taste, of great acuteness and discriminating judgment, to Moses as the au- 
thor, because it betrays every where, as they think, the most indubitable 
marks of his style and spirit. Another class of critics, equally eminent 
for literary acquisition and discrimination, confidently draw the conclu- 
sion, that Moses could not have been the author, from the feeling which 
they have, on reading it, that it is composed in a manner totally diverse 
from the style and spirit of Moses. 

Just such is the case, in regard to the speech of Elihu in the book of 
Job. One party reject it as spurious, because their critical taste leads 
them to do so; and another hold it to be genuine, for the like reason. 

Isaiah, too, has met with the same fate. The last 26 chapters are now 
familiarly called Pseudo-Isaiah, by one party of critics; while another 
strive to vindicate the whole book as genuine. 

Each party, in these cases, is confident and satisfied of the validity of 
their arguments. But what is the humble inquirer to do, in the midst of 
all these contests of taste and of opinion ? How can he trust his feelings 
to decide, with confidence, in a case where the most acute and distin- 
guishing critics differ, in respect to the judgment that a critical tact should 
give? He cannot do it with safety. In what way then shall one who 
examines for himself, be able to arrive at any satisfactory conclusion ? 
My answer in all such cases would be, MAKE THE ACTUAL COMPARISON 3 
collate sentiment with sentiment, phrase with phrase, words with words. 
This is the kind of proof that is palpable, and is not left to the uncertain 
tenor of feeling, excited by mere insulated perusal; a feeling, which in 
cases where the composition read is in a foreign language, must be a very 
uncertain guide; and which even in our own vernacular language, not 
unfrequently misleads us. 

Origen, as he avers, found the thoughts of Paul in the epistle to the He- 
brews ; but the words, he thinks, are better Greek (ἑλληνικώτερα) than the 
apostle wrote. He therefore resorts to the supposition, that a translator 
had given to it its present Greek costume, who had received the senti- 
ments from the mouth of Paul, But Eichhorn does not limit the differ- 
ence between the style of this epistle and those of Paul, to the quality of 
the Greek. “The manner of it,” says he, “is more tranquil and logical, 
than that in which Paul with his strong feelings could write. Every 
thing is arranged in the most exact order. The expression is well round- 


ὃ 26. OBJECTIONS BY BERTHOLDT. 163 


ed, choice, and very clear in the representation which it makes. Paul is 
altogether different; he is unperiodical, involved, obscure, writes poor 
Greek, is given to rhapsody and aphorism, Einl. § 260.” Bertholdt has 
repeated the same sentiment, in almost the same words, in his Introduc- 
tion to this Epistle, § 646. Bleek (p. 324 seq.) has also contended for the 
same thing, so far as the collocation of words, the rounding off of peri- 
ods, fine rhythms, oratorical manner, and the avoidance of imperfect or 
suspended sentences, etc., are concerned ; but in regard to perspicuity, con- 
nection in the mode of representation, dialectical acuteness, and definite- 
ness of expression, he thinks Paul is superior to the writer of our epistle ; 
® very different representation indeed in these latter respects, from those 
of Eichhorn and Bertholdt. 

If I may be allowed to express my own feelings, after having for ma- 
ny years annually devoted myself to the explanation of this epistle, trans- 
lated it with all the care which I could bestow upon it, and minutely 
weighed every expression and word in it, [ should say, that nothing could 
be more unfortunately chosen, than the epithet, “ruhig,” equable, tranquil, 
void of excitement, which two of these distinguished critics have applied to its 
style. I appeal to every man’s feelings who reads it, and ask, Are there 
in the whole book of God, any warnings so awful as those here, and ex- 
pressed with such mighty energy? Are there any threats of punishment 
for unbelief, so tremendous and impassioned as those in this epistle ? 

Then, as to ‘ every thing being arranged in such exact order, as they 
aver, ‘conclusion following conclusion, all in the manner of a good rheto- 
rician ; the instances above produced in § 22. No. 2, and which might 
easily be increased, of enthymemes, and suspended construction, exactly 
in the manner of Paul, may help us to judge of this. Moreover, let any 
one make the attempt to translate this epistle into his own vernacular 
language, and he will then see whether all is so well-rounded and perspic- 
wous as these critics represent it to be. I find ellipsis as frequent here, 
as in Paul’s acknowledged writings. Any good translation that exhibits 
the supply of these ellipses, and marks them by the common mode in 
which they are printed, demonstrates this to the eye. Hebraism I find 
here, as well and as often as in Paul; see § 32. 

On the whole, however, I cannot but feel, in reading the epistle to the 
Hebrews, that the writer has reached the very summit of eloquence, and 
energy, and vivid representation, in many passages of his composition ; 
but I am constrained to make a similar acknowledgment, in respect to 
many passages of the known epistles of Paul. I cannot perceive any 
striking diversity in regard to these characieristics. 

To what cause now can it be attributed, that feelings so very different 
in respect to the character of the style, should arise in the minds of men 
when they read the epistle in question? ‘'[wo reasons for this, I appre- 
hend, may be given. The first and principal one is, that the main topics 
of this epistle are so diverse from those generally treated of in the ac- 
knowledged epistles of Paul, that they required, of course and from ne- 
cessity, a variety of words, phrases, and ideas, that either are not common, 
or are not at all to be found, in his other epistles. This I regard as chicf- 
ly the ground of the judgment, which has so often been passed in respect 


104 § 26. OBJECTIONS BY BERTHOLDT. 


to dissimilarity of style. The other is, that one comes to the reading of 
this epistle, with his feelings impressed by the circumstance, that there is 
a want of direct evidence about the author ; and consequently so tuned, 
as to be strongly agitated by’any thing, which may seem to increase or 
diminish the probability that Paul was the author of it. That the doc- 
trinal views contained in this epistle, have made many willing to get rid 
of its canonical authority, if it could be done, is not by any means im- 
probable. After all, however, in a question where there is such a differ- 
ence of sentiment in regard to style, among those who are capable of 
judging, the appeal must be made, and can be made, only to actual com- 
parison. Such an appeal I have endeavoured to make above, in δὴ 23. 
24. To array mere feeling or apprehension arising from the perusal of the 
epistle, against actual comparison, can never be to judge by making use of 
the best means of judging. Origen’s authority, in this case, can not go far 
with any one who chooses to examine and decide for himself. Origen, 
with all his talents and learning, was far enough from being a Cicero or a 
Quinctilian, in respect to taste and nice discernment of difference of style. 
He makes assertions equally confident, in other cases, that will not bear 
the test of examination; and assertions too, that have respect to the 
Greek language, his mother tongue. For example, he says that the want 
of the article before Sedc,in John 1:1, proves that the writer cannot 
have meant to designate the supreme God by this word ; thus intimating 
that the presence of the article is necessary whenever a writer means to 
designate the supreme God. But whether the supreme God be meant or 
not, can never be determined by such a rule ; for it is usual, in the Greek 
language, that the predicate of a proposition should be without the article, 
while the subject commonly has it. Morever, in the very same chapter, 
Seog stands without the article, in more than one instance, incontroverti- 
bly for the supreme God; 6. g. in vs. 6, 12, 18, 18. Whether Origen’s 
opinion, then, about the style of the epistle to the Hebrews, is well found- 
ed or not, is a proper subject of examination. The result of comparison 
has shewn, that in respect to sentiment, phraseology, and diction, our 
epistle is filled with the peculiarities of Paul. I doubt whether any one 
of Paul’s acknowledged epistles, compared with the others, will supply 
more, or more exact resemblances. It remains for those who follow the 
opinion of Origen, as to the style of our epistle, to point them out if they 
exist. 

I know, indeed, that no critic can be argued out of feelings of this sort 
in respect to style. But he may reasonably be called upon to state the 
ground of those feelings ; specially so, when he asserts, with a confidence 
which is intended to influence others, that the style of the epistle to the 
Hebrews cannot be Paul’s. 

(5) But Bertholdt has made the appeal to fact. He has produced words 
and expressions which, he says, ‘are not Pauline, and which serve satis- 
factorily to shew that Paul could not have written the epistle to the He- 
brews.’ I proceed to examine them. 

(a) ‘In Hebrews 13: 7, 17, 24, the word ἡγούμενοι is used for teachers ; 
Paul every where employs the word διδάσκαλοι for this purpose, p. 2937." 

The allegation that Paul every where uses the word διδάσκαλοι to desig- 


§ 26. OBJECTIONS BY BERTHOLDT. 165 


nate teachers, is far from being correct. He uses, besides this, the words 
πρεσβύτερος, 1 Tim. 5:1, 17, 19. Tit. 1:5; ἐπίσκοπος, Acts 20: 28. 
Phil. 1:1. 1 Tim. 3:2. Tit. 1:73 ποιμήν, Eph. 4:11. Very natural 
for Paul it must have been, to apply a variety of appellations to Christian 
ministers, which would correspond with those applied to religious teach- 
ers in the Jewish synagogues. ‘These were 0273, pastor, leader, guide, 
prefect ; 3977272, leader, guide ; 3°43, ruler, prefect; and FAbN, guide, di- 
rector. What could be more natural then, than for Paul, when writing 
to Hebrews, to call the teachers in their churches ἡγούμενοι, which cor- 
responds quite well with all the above appellations that they had been 
accustomed to give to their religious teachers ? Besides, the argument of 
Bertholdt, if admitted, would prove too much. 'The same mode of rea- 
soning must lead us to conclude, that those epistles, im which Christian 
teachers are called ἐπέσκοποι, cannot be reckoned as Paul’s, because δὲ-- 
δάσκαλοι is not used instead of ἐπίσκοποι. The same may be said, in 
respect to the use of the words ποιμήν and πρεσβύτεροι. The consequence 
would be, that several of Paul’s now acknowledged epistles could not be 
ascribed to him. But who that knows the variety of appellations which 
were employed to designate teachers in the Jewish synagogues, can at- 
tribute any critical weight to the fact, that such a variety of Greek terms 
is used, corresponding with the Hebrew appellations that were familiar 
to those whom our author addressed ? And of all these Greek names of 
pastors, certainly none better corresponds with the Hebrew ones, than 
the word ἡγούμενοι employed in our epistle. 

It may be added too, that Paul employed a term here which was not 
at all wnique ; for the same appellation is given to teachers in Luke 22: 
26. Acts 14:12. 15:22. And besides all this, ἡγούμενοι is used for 
teachers only three times in the whole epistie to the Hebrews, viz. 13: 7, 
17, 24, all in the concluding part of the epistle, and all standing so con- 
nected together, that the name once employed, would almost of course be 
repeated in the other instances. 

«(0) ‘In the epistle to the Hebrews, κατέχειν βεβαίαν is used for holding 
Jast, Heb. 3: 6,14; and κατέχειν ἀκλινῆ, in Heb. 10: 23; while Paul uses 
only χατέχειν simply, 1 Cor. 11:2. 15:2. 1 Thess. 5: 212 

On examination, 1 find the verb κατέχω, in the sense of holding fast, 
carefully retaining, to be exclusively Pauline. This word, then, affords 
an argument to establish a conclusion, which is the very reverse of that 
for which it is adduced by Bertholdt. The addition of βεβαίαν or ἀκλινῆ 
is evidently for the purpose merely of intensity ; just as we may join an 
adverb to a verb for this purpose, or we may refrain from the use of it, 
and still employ the same verb simply in the same sense. What could 
be more natural, now, than for the writer of the epistle to the Hebrews 
to employ words of intensity, while in the state of strongly excited feeling 
in which he wrote ὃ 

‘(c) ‘In the epistle to the Hebrews, we find εἰς τὸ διηνεκές, 7: 3, and εἰς 
τὸ παντελές, 7: 25, used to designate the idea of forever ; while Paul al- 
ways uses εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας. 

Our author also employs αἰών, in the epistle to the Hebrews, no less 
than nine times in the like way; viz. 1: 8. 5:6. 6:20. 7: 17,21, 24, 28. 


100 ᾧ 26. OBJECTIONS BY BERTHOLDT. 


13: 8, 21; while dijvexéc is employed only four times, viz. 7: 3. 10: 1, 12, 
14. Is it a matter of wonder, that he should sometimes employ other 
words than αἰών, which were synonymous; specially, if those words be- 
Jonged both to common and to Hebrew Greek? Such is the fact, in 
respect to both the words in question. Ζίνηνεκές is used by Aelian, Var. 
Hist. 1: 19; by Appian, Bell. Civ. I. p. 682; Heliod. Ethiop. I. p. 95. Lu- 
cian, V. H. I. 19; by Symmachus, translator of the Hebrew Scriptures 
into Greek, Ps. 48:15. Zaytedég is used by Aelian, VII. 2. XII. 20; by 
Josephus, Antiq. VI, 2,3; and by Luke, 13, 11; and in our epistle, once 
only, viz. in 7: 25. But whether the sense of the word παντελὲς in Heb. 
7: 25 is forever, may be doubted. Its etymology would lead to the sense 
of prorsus, omnino, i.e. entirely, altogether, thoroughly ; and so many critics 
have construed it. Such is clearly the meaning of παντελῶς : 6. g. Jos. 
Antiq. IV. 6.5. 2 Macc. 3: 12,31. 7: 40; and so Bretschneider construes 
εἰς τὸ παντελές in Heb. 7: 25, in his recent lexicon. But supposing it does 
mean forever, in the case before us, can the argument, derived from the 
employment of such synonymes as belong to common and to Hebrew 
Greek together with εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, be of any validity to show that Paul 
could not have written our epistle ? 

(d) ‘ Αἰῶνες, in the sense of universe, is used only in the epistle to the 
Hebrews, 1: 2. 11: 13. Paul employs other terms to designate the same 
idea, such as τὰ πάντα, etc.’ 

Paul, in the phrase τῷ βασιλεῖ τῶν αἰωνῶν, 1 Tim. 1: 17, has employed 
the word in the same sense as that in which it is used in the epistle to the 
Hebrews; and as the use of the word αἰών, in such a sense, is limited to 
Paul and to our epistle, (so far as the New Testament is concerned), if it 
proves any thing, it would seem to prove the very reverse of what Ber- 
tholdt has adduced it to establish. 

(6) ‘The word πίστις is always used by Paul, in the restricted sense of 
πίστις εἰς ᾿Ιησοῦν Χριστόν; in the epistle to the Hebrews, it is employed 
in a much wider latitude.’ 

So Bertholdt, p. 2939; and to the same purpose, Eichhorn, Einleit. p. 
462. This objection has been repeated, greatly magnified, and dwelt up- 
on, by Schulz, Brief an die Hebriier. p. 112 seq.; and by Seyffarth, de 
Epist. ad Heb. indole, ὃ 33. These latter writers represent aiotic, when 
used by Paul, as always having reference to Christ or the Christian reli- 
gion as such; whereas σέστις in our epistle relates, they aver, only to God 
or to things future, and means a firm confidence in the declarations of 
God respecting them ; a sense in which, as they think, Paul never employs 
the word. With some modifications, and less confidently, Bleek has re- 
cently urged the like views, I. p. 310 seq. 

I have united the objections and views of these writers under one 
head, in order to save the repetition of this subject. It deserves an atten- 
tive consideration. / 

There can be no doubt that Paul, in a multitude of cases, employs πέσ- 
τις to designate belief in Christ as our Saviour and Redeemer. He often 
employs it to designate that state of mind which trusts in his propitiatory 
sacrifice or blood as the means of salvation, in opposition to any trust or 
confidence in our own merit as the ground of acceptance. But to aver 


§ 26. OBJECTIONS BY BERTHOLDT. 167 


that the author of our epistle does not disclose similar views, in regard to 
the nature or importance of faith or belief in Christ, seems to be quite con- 
trary to the whole tenor of the epistle. What is the object of the whole ὃ 
Plainly to prevent apostasy, i.e. renunciation of belief in Christ. But 
why is such a renunciation criminal and dangerous ξ ? Because Christ is of 
infinite dignity, and because when belief in the efficacy of his’ afoning 
blood is renounced, “there remaineth no further sacrifice for sin.” To 
what purpose is the awful example of the effects of unbelief proposed in 
chapter u1., except to warn the Hebrews against renouncing belief in 
Christ? To what purpose are the parallels drawn in chapters 11—x., 
between Christ and Moses, Christ and Melchizedek, between the great 
high priest of the Christian religion and the Jewish priests, between the 
sacrifice offered by the former and the sacrifices made by the latter, but for 
the sake of warning the Hebrews against renouncing their faith in Christ ? 
Plainly for no other purpose. All the warnings, reproofs, and tremendous 
denunciations of the epistle, converge to the same point; they all have a 
bearing upon the same specific object. 

In respect to the allegation that faith, in our epistle, is employed to de- 
note belief or confidence in the declarations of God, specially with regard 
to the objects of a future world; this is true. But it is true also, that 
Paul in his acknowledged epistles employs it in a similar manner; e. g. 
in Rom. 4: 17—23, Paul represents Abraham, under the most unpromising 
circumstances, as ‘believing that God would raise up from him, already 
»εγεκρωμένον, a numerous progeny. This belief he represents as an act of 
faith, ἐπέστευσε---μὴ ἀσϑηνήσας τὴ πίστει---οὐ διεχρίϑη τῇ ἀπιστίᾳ---πληρο- 
φορηϑείς---ἐλογίσϑη τῷ Αβραὰμ [ἡ πίστις] εἰς δικαιοσύνην. On the other 
hand, our epistle (11: 8 seq.) represents Abraham as going out from his 
country, and sojourning in a strange land, πίστει. By faith also he ob-, 
tained a son, even when he was vevexowuévog (11: 12), from whom a nu- 
merous progeny was to spring. Both these accounts characterize this 
whole transaction in the same way. Both describe the same acts as 
being faith on the part of Abraham. Both describe his physical state by 
calling him vevexowusvoy. Both treat the whole transaction as a rare 
instance of the power of faith, and appeal to it as an example most wor- 
thy of imitation. Surely here is something different from discrepancy of 
views in these writers. Is there not a coincidence which is altogether 
striking, both in the manner and even diction of the epistles ? 

But there are other circumstances in the account of Abraham, which 
deserve distinct notice. Paul, in Rom. 4: 17 seq., represents Abraham 
as believing the divine assurance that he should become the father of 
many nations; the assurance of that God, ‘who restoreth the dead to life, 
and calleth things that are not into being.’ In this expression the apostle 
evidently refers to the belief which Abraham entertained, that, in case he 
offered up Isaac as a sacrifice, God could and would raise him from the 
dead, or call another son into being from whom a numerous progeny should 
descend. So in Heb. 11: 17 seq., the writer represents Abraham as offer- 
ing up Isaac, in faith that God would be able to raise him from the dead, 
from whence, as it were, he did obtain him, i.e. Isaac sprung up from 
one apparently vevexowuéyoc, v. 12. In both cases the writers have char- 


168 §26. OBJECTIONS BY BERTHOLDT. 


acterized the state of Abrahafn’s mind on this occasion, by representing it 
as faith, ἐπίστευσε, πέστει. In both they disclose the same specific 
views of the point on which the faith of Abraham rested, and they charac- 
terize it in the same way. [5 not here a minute coincidence of thought, 
expression, and manner of representing faith, which creates strong pre- 
sumption in favour of the opinion, that the writer in both cases was the 
same person ? 

Again ; in Heb. x1. Noah is represented as divinely admonished re- 
specting future occurrences, and as preparing an ark for his safety in 
consequence of his faith in the admonition which he had received. The 
writer then proceeds to say, that by this act he became an heir τῆς κατὰ 
πίστιν δικαιοσύνης, of that justification which is by faith ; the very expres- 
sion and the very idea which Paul so often repeats in his acknowledged 
epistles, viz. those to the Romans and Galatians. What other writer of 
the New Testament, except Paul, has employed such an expression ? 

It is true, indeed, that the author of our epistle does represent faith, in 
Heb. χι., as confidence in the declarations of God respecting future things. 
But it is equally true, that this was the view of it which he was naturally 
led to present, from the circumstances of the case before him. His ap- 
peal was to the worthies of former days, as examples of belief. Belief in 
what? Not in Christianity surely, which had not then been revealed. 
Could the writer, when characterizing the actual nature of their faith, 
represent it as a belief in that which was not yet disclosed to them ? 
Surely not; but he must represent it, and does represent it, as a belief in 
what God had disclosed to them. The nature of the case rendered it im- 
possible, that their faith should be represented in any other light than this. 

Just so Paul, in Rom. iv., represents the faith of Abraham as justifying 
faith, and appeals to it in proof of the fact, that faith is a means of justi- 
fication. Yet not a word is said there of Abraham’s belief in Christ. In 
what respect does this case differ from that of all the examples cited in 
Heb. x1.? Rather, is there not a sameness of principle in the two instances 
of faith? Both respect future things depending on the promise of God ; 
neither have any special reference to Christ. 

The truth is, that faith, in its generic nature, is belief or confidence in 
the promises or revelations of God. Now whether these respect things 
future, things of another world, or things past, or the nature, character, 
offices, and work of the Messiah, faith receives them all. Faith, there- 
fore, in the ancients, who gave entire credit to what was revealed to them, 
was the same principle as faith in him who believes in Christ, because 
Christ is proposed to him. Circumstances only make an apparent dif- 
ference in the case. The disposition is always the same. 

That Paul thought thus of this subject, is clear enough from the example 
of Abraham, which he cites as a signal instance of justifying faith in Rom. 
tv. But besides this, we have other proof that Paul has not always re- 
presented faith as having reference only to Christ. He has also repre- 
sented it as it commonly appears in our epistle. So2 Cor. 5: 7, We walk 
by faith and not by sight, i.e. we live as those who confide or believe in 
the realities of a future world, not like those who regard only visible ob- 
jects. So too in 1 Cor. 13:13. In 1 Thess. 1:8, we have ἢ πίστις ὑμῶν 


§26. ΟΒΙΞΟΤΙΟΝΒ BY BERTHOLDT. 169 
Bade feet: citer ee 
ἣ πρὸς τὸν ϑεόν ; 1 Cor. 12:9, πίστις ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ πνεύματι. So in 1 Cor. 
13:2. 2. ον. 4:13. Eph. 6:16. 1 Thess. ὅ : 8, and in many other pas- 
sages, faith has a variety of meanings, and is not limited to belief in Christ 
only. Iam unable to see, therefore, why this argument should be so 
strenuously urged as it is by Schulz and others, and relied upon as so 
decisive. I can see no other difference between the faith of our epistle, 
and that which the writings of Paul present, than what the nature of the 
examples to which our author appealed necessarily requires. When 
Paul makes a like appeal, he treats the subject in the same way; 6. g. in 
Rom. tv. And nothing ean be farther from correctness than to aver, that 
Paul alwaysemploys πέστις in the sense of Christianity, or believing on Christ. 
Merely opening a Greek lexicon or concordance at the word πίστις, is 
ample refutation of this assertion. Paul employs the word in all the lati- 
tude which is elsewhere given it in the New Testament; and that em- 
braces a great variety of specific significations, nearly all of which range 
themselves under the general idea of confidence in the divine declarations. 

That it is the great object of our epistle to inculeate belief in Christ, 
and to warn the Hebrews against unbelief, Τ suppose will not be denied. 
What foundation, then, can Schulz have for saying, that “the Pauline 
idea of belief is altogether foreign to this writer?” Above all how could 
he add, that “a sentence like the Pauline one, 0 οὐχ ἐκ πίστεως ἁμαρτία ἐστί, 
would sound strange enough in the epistle to the Hebrews?” Yet strange 
as it may seem, in Heb. 11:6 we have χωρὶς δὲ πίστεως ἀδύνατον εὐαρεσ- 
τῆσαι [Feo]. 

On the whole, the representation of faith in our epistle, as it respects 
the case of Abraham and Noah, is not only exactly the same as that made 
by Paul, but in the mode of representation are actually found such strong 
resemblances, as to afford no inconsiderable ground for supposing that 
the writer of both must have been the same person. 

(f) ‘ Sagxixos, in the sense of transient, temporary, is used only in the 
epistle to the Hebrews, 7: 16.’ 

But first, this is a disputed reading. Not to rely on this however, 
σαρκικός is used by Paul in the sense of weak, imperfect, e. g. 2 Cor. 10: 
4; a sense substantially the same. with the one demanded here. Bret- 
schneider renders it, in Heb. 7: 16, ad naturam animalem spectans ; which 
is a usual sense, but not admissible here, on account of the antithesis 
ζωῆς ἀκαταλύτου. Let it be then a ἅπαξ λεγόμενον as to sense here, are 
there not such in nearly all of Paul’s epistles? E. g. ἐξουσία, 1 Cor. 11: 
10, in the sense of veil ; in 1 Cor. 9: 12, in the sense of property ; and so 
of many other words. 

(5) ‘The phrase οἰκουμένη μέλλουσα, for the Christian dispensation, Heb. 
2:5, is no where found in Paul’s acknowledged epistles, in which he al- 
ways employs αἰὼν shia.’ 

But are not οἰχουμένη and αἰών employed as synonymes in the New Tes- 
tament? Both correspond to the Heb. Ἐξ ἢ». Besides, in Heb. 6: 5 this 
very phrase, αἰὼν μέλλων, is once employed by the writer in the sense of 
Christian dispensation ; and οἰκουμένη μέλλουσα is used but once in our 
epistle, viz. in Heb.2: 5. Must the same writer always employ the very 
same phraseology, when he has a choice of synonymous words ? Besides, 


22 


[70 ᾧ 30. OBJECTIONS BY BERTHOLDT. 


7 


it is not true ion Paul uses the phrase αἰὼν μέλλων for dis Ciesiticag dis- 
pensation. Once ouly does he employ this phrase, viz.:in Eph. 1: 21, 
and then simply in the sense of future world. 

(kh) ‘ But where is Christ called a high priest and an apostle, except in 
Heb. 3:12 It cannot be imagined, that the reverence which the apostles 
bore to their master, would permit them to call him an apostle.’ 

As to the appellation ἀρχιερεύς, nothing could be more natural than for 
the writer of the epistle to the Hebrews to apply this to Christ. He la- 
bours to prove that Christianity has a preference over Judaism in all re- 
spects ; and consequently, that it has a high priest exalted above the Jew- 
ish one. How could the writer avoid calling Christ a high priest? If 
Paul has no where done this in his acknowledged epistles, it may be for 
the obvious reason, that he has no where drawn such a comparison in 
them. 

In respect to ἀπόστολος, Wetstein has shewn (on John 9: 7), that one of 
the names which the Jews applied to their expected Messiah, was M°>W , 
i.e. sent, iq. ἀπεσταλμένος, ἀπόστολος, apostle. Besides, a common name 
ofa prefect of the Jewish synagogue, was ADS Mw , ἀπόστολος τῆς 
éxxdyotog; in the Apocalypse, ἄγγελος τῆς ἐχκλησίας. Now the object of 
the writer in Heb. 3: 1 seq., is to compare Christ as appointed over the 
household of God, with Moses in a similar office. Since then ΠΣ ὦ 
meant curator aedis sacrae, aedituus, and such an office was the very ob- 
ject of comparison, nothing can be more natural than that our author 
should name Christ HW, i. 6. ἀπόστολος. See Comm. on Heb. 3: 1. 
And why should it be considered as incompatible with that reverence 
which Paul had for Christ, that he should call him ἀπόστολος. The 
same Paul, in Rom. 15: 8, calls Jesus Christ διάχονον τὴς περιτομῆς. Is 
διάκονος a more honorable appellation than ἀπόστολος Or because Paul 
calls Christ διάκονος in this case, are we to draw the inference, that he 
did not write the epistle to the Romans, since this word is no where else 
applied by him in this manner? Such a conclusion would be of the 
same nature and of the same validity, as that which Bertholdt has drawn 
from the use of ἀπόστολος and ἀρχιερεύς in the epistle to the Hebrews. 


Thus much for words and phrases. Bertholdt next brings forward sen- 
timents in the epistle to the Hebrews, which, he says are diverse from 
Paul’s, if not in opposition to them. 

(1) ‘In Heb. 10: 25 seq. the speedy coming of Christ is mentioned ; 
and so it is often by Paul. But in the epistle to the Hebrews it is evi- 
dently a moral coming, a moral change ; whereas Paul every where speaks 
of it as an actual, visible coming of Christ.’ 

This difficulty depends entirely upon the writer’s exegesis. Whatever 
the nature of the coming of Christ may be, I venture to say, it is palpably 
represented in the same manner in the epistle to the Hebrews and in the 
epistles of Paul. Indeed, so far has the representation in the epistle to 
the Hebrews appeared to some from being plainly a moral one, that a 
portion of the most distinguished commentators have understood it as 
having respect to the natural changes that are to take place, when Christ 
shall come at the end of the world. So Storr; and others also, both be- 


) 26. ΟΒΟΒΟΤΙΟΝΒ BY ΒΕΒΥΗΟΙΌΤ. 171 


fore and after him. Paul surely says little or nothing, which more cer- 
tainly designates the actual, visible coming of Christ, than this epistle. 
Comp. 1 Cor. 4: 5, 6. Phil. 1:10. 4:5. 1 Thess. 3:18. 5:1—6. 5: 23, 
1 Tim. 6: 18—16. Tit. 2: 11—13. Compare also with these representa- 
tions, 2 ‘Thess. 2: 1—10, where Paul explains his views in respect to the 
coming of Christ. Indeed, so much alike is the representation of this 
subject, in the epistle to the Hebrews and in Paul’s epistles, that many 
critics have used this very circumstance as a proof that the author of both 
must have been the same person; an argument not valid, however, be- 
cause the same representation is common to other writers of the New 
Testament. Still, the mention of this serves to show, that the exegesis of 
Bertholdt, in this case, is not to be relied on with such confidence as he 
places in it. 

(2) ‘According to the epistle to the Hebrews, the propitiatory office of 
Christ continues forever in the heavenly world, 7: 24 seq.; whereas Paul, 
on the contrary, considers the atonement for men as already completed by 
the death and resurrection of Jesus, Rom. 4: 25. 

This argument is surely not well chosen. ‘The author of the epistle to 
the Hebrews says, in so many words, that the high priest of Christianity 
had no daily necessity, like the Jewish priests, to make offerings first for 
his own transgressions and then for those of the people ; “ for this he did 
once for all, when he made an offering of himself, 7:27.” And again ; 
“Nor had he need often to repeat the sacrifice of himself, (as the high 
priest yearly enters into the holy place with blood not his own); for then 
he must have suffered often since the foundation of the world; but now 
in this last age, he has appeared once for all, to put away sin by the sacri- 
fice of himself. And as all men die, once for all, and then go to the judg- 
ment ; so Christ was offered up, once for all, to take away the sins of 
many ; and when he shall make his second appearance, it will not be to 
atone for sin, but to bestow salvation on those who look for him, 9: 25— 
28.” How can words make it more certain, that the author of the epis- 
tle to the Hebrews considered the propitiation or atonement as entirely 
completed by the death of Christ ? 

It is true, indeed, that the same author also represents Christ as for- 
ever living, and exercising the duties of his office as an intercessor (or 
helper) for the saints, before God: “He, because he continueth forever, 
hath an unchangeable priesthood ; whence he is able to save to the utter- 
most those who come unto God through him, since he ever lives to in- 
tercede for (ἐντυγχάνειν to help) them, 7: 24, 25.” With which agrees 
another representation, in 9: 24; ‘‘Christ has entered into heaven itself, 
henceforth to appear before God for us.” But are these sentiments for- 
eign to Paul, as Bertholdt alleges? “ Who shall accuse the elect of 
God ?—God acquits them. Who shall pass sentence of condemnation 
uponthem? Jt is Christ, who died for them ; rather, who is visen again, 
who is at the right hand of God, and who intercedes for (ἐντυγχάνει) 
them, Rom. 8: 33.” Here is not only the very same idea as in the epis- 
tle to the Hebrews, but even the very same term (ἐντυγχάνει) is used in 
both. Instead then of affording any evidence against the opinion that 
Paul wrote the epistle to the Hebrews, the point in question affords evi- 


12 § 26. OBJECTIONS BY BERTHOLDT. 


dence in favour of it. Paul, and Paul only, of all the apostolic authors, 
has presented the idea of the intercession of Christ in the heavenly world. 
To say the least, the whole mode of representing this subject is Pauline. 
The only difference between the epistle to the Romans and the epistle to 
the Hebrews, is, that in the latter case, the nature of the argument which 
the writer had employed, required him to represent Christ as performing 
the functions of a priest in the heavenly world. But it is plainly the in- 
tercessory function which he is represented as continuing there to per- 
form, in the passages which 1 have cited. 

(3) ‘The doctrine respecting the Logos, in the epistle to the Hebrews, 
is of Alexandrine hue, and evidently resembles that of John, and not of 
Paul. E.g. the divine Logos (λύγος ϑεοῦ) is quick and powerful, ete., 
4: 12,13; also, Christ is a priest κατὰ δύναμιν ζωῆς ἀκαταλύτου, 3: 16. 
So too, when Christ is represented as making an offering διὰ πγεύματος 
αἰωνίου 9: 14, this, as well as the other cases, coincides with the views and 
representations of Jobn, and not of Paul.’ 

If now a critic will do such violence to the laws of exegesis, as to con- 
strue these passages so as to make them have respect to the doctrine of 
the Logos, the best way to answer him would be to show that his princi- 
ples of interpretation are without any good foundation. J cannot turn 
aside to do this here, as it more properly belongs to the exegesis of the 
epistle. I shall content myself with merely observing, that one of the 
last ideas which can well be deduced from the passage respecting the 
λόγος ϑεοῦ just referred to, is that which Bertholdt has deduced fromm it. 
His deduction does equal violence to the context, and to the whole strain 
of reasoning in our epistle. And where does John speak of Christ’s eter- 
nal priesthood, or of his offering made in heaven διὰ πγεύματος αἰωνίου 3 
And what resemblance have his writings to our epistle in this respect ? 

At the conclusion of the arguments which I have now reviewed, Ber- 
tholdt adds, “ With such real discrepancies between the epistle to the He- 
brews and those of Paul, it is impossible that identity of authorship should 
exist, p. 2943.” 

If indeed the discrepancies were made out as clearly as Bertholdt sup- 
poses them to be, there might be some difficulty in supposing identity of 
authorship; at least we could not suppose this, without at the same time 
conceding that the writer was at variance in some measure with himself. 
But the conclusion which Bertholdt here draws, of course depends en- 
tirely on the fact, that all his allegations in respect to discrepancies of 
style and sentiment are well supported. Whether this be so, must now 
be left to the reader to judge. 

But there are other recent writers, who remain to be examined, that 
have gone into the subject under discussion much more thoroughly and 
copiously than Bertholdt. I refer in particular to Dr. Schulz of Breslau, 
in the introduction to his Translation of the epistle to the Hebrews, with 
brief notes, published A. 1). 1818; and to Seyffarth, in his tract De Episto- 
lae ad Heb. indole maxime peculiari. 'This last work especially has been 
spoken of with strong commendation by many critics; and Heinrichs, 
who in the first edition of his Commentary on the Hebrews defended the 
Pauline origin of our epistle, has, in the second edition of the same, de- 
clared himself a convert to the side of those who disclaim Paul as the 


§ 27. OBJECTIONS BY SCHULZ. 173 


author; attributing his conviction principally to the essay of Seyffarth 
just mentioned. As these works are late critical attempts to discuss at 
length the question under examination, and as they have manifestly had 
no small degree of influence upon the views of most of the continental 
critics of the present time, a particular examination of them becomes ne- 
cessary. 


§ 27. Objections of Schulz considered. 


That Dr. Schulz is a man entitled to high respect for acuteness and 
strength of intellectual power, is sufficiently manifest, from his work on 
the Sacrament, entitled Die christl. Lehre vom heil. Abendmahle, nach dem 
Grundtexte des N.. Testaments, A. 1). 1824; a work which, from the talent 
it developes and the discussion that it has excited, bids fair perhaps to 
bring this long controverted subject to some close, in the Lutheran church: 
His acquisitions of a philological nature are such, also, that great expecta- 
tions were excited among not a few in Germany, (if the Reviews are to be 
credited), when it was announced that Dr. Schulz’s commentary on our 
epistle was about to appear. I make these remarks principally to show, 
that a particular attention to his work is not only allowable on the present 
occasion, but really necessary, if one would even seem to preserve the at- 
titude of impartiality. 

Nearly the whole Introduction of Schulz is devoted to the consideration 
of the question, Who was the author of the epistle to the Hebrews? or 
rather, to showing that Paul was not the author, pp. 1—158. Previously to 
writing this, the author had been engaged in controversy on the subject, 
with his colleague Scheibel. The whole work bears the appearance of a 
heated, if not an exasperated, state of mind ; and while it discloses some 
vivid thoughts and pungent considerations, it also discloses some adventur- 
ous remarks and extravagant criticisms ; to which the sequel of this ex- 
amination will bear testimony. 

The first fifty pages are devoted to the examination of Meyer’s Essay, 
on the internal grounds for supposing that the epistle to the Hebrews was 
written by Paul.* This examination proffers some remarks worthy of 
consideration, and which may serve to shew that Meyer, in some cases, 
has pushed his comparisons too far. It is not to my purpose, however, 
to review this; as the subject has already been presented above, in § 2]. 
My only object is, to select from Schulz such arguments against the Pau- 
line origin of our epistle, as have not already been examined, in order that 
the reader may obtain a full view of our subject. These arguments I 
shall now subjoin, with such remarks upon each as the nature of the 
case may seem to require. 

(1) ‘It is incomprehensible, and indeed quite impossible, that, if Paul 
wrote this epistle, early Christian antiquity should have been so doubtful 
about it, and the epistle itself have been received by the church so late 


* Printed in Ammon and Bertholdt’s Kritisches Journal der neuesten theol. 
Literatur. II. 225 seq. 


174 Ἶ 237. OBJECTIONS BY SCHULZ. 


and with so ach aleeatees ; and after all, Been oti by some, and 
not at all by the generality of Christians. Saeh a fate did no other book 
of the New Testament meet with; not even the epistles which are ad- 
dressed to individual persons, p. 58. ᾿ 

This objection borrows all its importance, from assuming the fact that 
our epistle was early and generally doubted in the churches, and at last 
but partially and doubtingly received. Whether Schulz had any good 
right to assume such a fact, must be left to the judgment of those who 
have read and weighed with impartiality the historical evidence already 
laid before them. It is unnecessary to retrace the ground here, which 
has once been passed over. 'The state of facts is far enough from shew- 
ing that all early Christians were doubtful about this epistle; nor can it 
be rendered probable in any way, that doubts about it at any period had 
their origin in an ancient tradition that the epistle was not written by 
Paul. The doubts suggested are either merely of a critical nature; or 
else they are such as would seem to have originated in doctrinal opinions 
that are apparently thwarted by our epistle. 

Nor is it correct to say, that other parts of the New Testament were 
not early doubted by some churches; nay, some of it was doubted by 
many. Witness the fact, that Eusebius (Ecc. Hist. 111. 25) classes among 
the ἀντιλεγόμενοι, James, Jude, 2 Pet., 2 John, and 3 John. Witness the 
fact, that the old Syriac version (Peshito’) does not comprise either of 
these epistles, that of James excepted. Who, that is acquainted with the 
early state of criticism and the history of our canon, does not know that 
the ancient churches were not, for a long time, agreed in respect to all 
these epistles? Yet neither Schulz, nor any considerate critic, would 
decide that these books were spurious, because doubts had been raised 
respecting them. Are not the gospels of Matthew, Luke, and John 
doubted, and called in question by some learned critics even at the pres- 
ent time? Shall they be given up, because they are called in question ? 

(2) ‘The epistle to the Hebrews is altogether unique ; so much so, that 
no other writer of the New Testament could have produced it. Every 
one who can comprehend peculiarities, and is able to distinguish them, 
‘must acknowledge this to be so. Nothing more than this fact needs to be 
considered, in order to decide the matter, p. 59.’ 

If the writer here means that the style is unique, then I must refer to 
the evidences of the contrary in the preceding pages. If he means that 
the selection of particular words is unique, this is to be hereafter considered, 
when the selection which Dr. Schulz has made, comes to be examined. 
If he means that the matter is sui generis, I readily accede ; but I demur 
to the allegation. Must Paul always write on one and the same subject, 
to all the churches? Were their circumstances and wants all just the 
same? E.g.is the first epistle to the Corinthians just like that to the 
Romans, Philippians, Colossians, Thessalonians, ete.? Surely none of 
the others has much resemblance to it, in respect to the matters treated 
of. Does it then follow that this epistle is spurious, because the subjects 
of it are sui generis? And is it any better evidence that the epistle to the 
Hebrews does not belong to Paul, because the subjects of which it treats 
are peculiar? When we can prove that the wants of all churches are 


§ 27. OBJECTIONS BY SCHULZ. 175 


one and the same ; and that an apostle who addresses them can write, or 
ought to write, only upon one subject, and in one way; then, and not till 
then, can this argument of Schulz have any weight in deciding the ques- 
tion before us. 

(3) ‘The Hebrews addressed in this epistle are of a peculiar class. 
They seem to have regarded themselves as a species of illuminati, elect, 
and favorites of heaven; as animated by the Holy Spirit dwelling in 
them; they are represented as despising the world, as inclined to mystical 
and allegorical views, as aiming at the acquisition of unearthly objects, 
etc. The epistle wins much for its exegesis by such a supposition, p. 
67 seq.’ 

But supposing now all this to be correct, (which it would be difficult 
enough satisfactorily to prove), how would it show that Paul did not write 
our epistle to them? And surely, if the Hebrews had such views of 
themselves, what the apostle says.in chapter vy. v1., and in some other 
places, was well adapted to humble them and bring them to sober con- 
sideration. 

The proof on which Dr. Schulz relies for the establishment of his asser- 
tion, is drawn from the use, by the writer of our epistle, of such terms as 
ἅγιοι, φωτισϑέντες, τέλειοι, ἁγιαζόμενοι, λάος tov ϑεοῦ, etc. But these are 
terms applied to Christians every where in the New Testament; and to 
the use of them nothing peculiar in our epistle can be justly attributed. 

(4) ‘The author of this epistle was a Judaizing Christian, who grants 
that Judaism is still to continue, yea to have a perpetual duration, Nota 
trace of any thing is to be found, which intimates an equal participation 
in the privileges of the gospel by Jews and Gentiles, pp. 74. 80.’ 

The first of these allegations is, so far as I know, altogether new. 
Nothing more need be said in respect to it, than to refer the reader to 
chapters viii—x., for most ample and satisfactory confutation. I had 
ever thought, before reading Dr. Schulz, that the writer of our epistle was 
the last of men who could be justly accused of Judaizing. If his views 
do not agree’ with those of Paul, in respect to this matter, | am unable to 
see how language could express them. 

In regard to the second allegation it is sufficient to say, that the object 
of the writer did not lead him to treat of the subject to which it relates. 
Are there not other epistles of Paul, which do not bring this subject to 
view? And must a writer always repeat the same topics? In what 
part of the first epistle to the Corinthians does Paul treat of the equal 
participation of the Jews and Gentiles in the privileges of the gospel, and 
maintain the equal right of the latter; as he does in the epistles to the 
Romans and Galatians? And is it not enough to say, that he did not do 
this because the occasion did not demand it ? 

(5) ‘But Christ, in our epistle, appears every where as the Son of God, 
as apostle, and high priest. Where is he so represented by Paul, p. 
81 seq.’ 

In regard to the appellation Son of God, it is often enough given to 
Christ by Paul. In respect to ἀπόστολος and ἀρχιερεύς, he is not so called, 
indeed, by the apostle in his acknowledged epistles. The only reason 
why the writer of our epistle calls him so, is obviously one drawn from 


176 § 27. OBJECTIONS BY SCHULZ. 


the nature of the comparison instituted between him and Moses, and be-~ 
tween bim and the Jewish high priest. The nature of the composition 
and the object of the writer rendered this unavoidable. In the acknow- 
ledged epistles of Paul, no such occasion is presented of using the appel- 
lations in question. 

(6) ‘The design of the writer is hortatory. The motives which he 
urges to continue steadfast in the Christian belief, and in the practice of 
Christian virtue, are drawn, (1) From the great dignity of the Messiah. 
(2) From the danger to which apostasy would expose them. This dan- 
ger is augmented by the consideration, that the end of the world is near at 
hand, p.86 seq. Storr and others, who differ in their exegesis of passages 
which declare this, scarcely deserve contradiction, p. 91, 

The whole force of this rests, of course, upon the correctness of 
Schulz’s exegesis. From his views of such passages as 10: 36 seq. and 
12: 26 seq., I feel myself compelled entirely to dissent. But even if they 
be allowed, I see not how they can establish the fact that Paul did not 
write our epistle, provided we stand upon the same ground with Schulz. 
He will not deny that Paul had exalted views of the dignity of the Sa- 
viour, and of the obligation of Christians to continue steadfast im their 
acknowledgment of him. He believes, too, that Paul expected the end of 
the world to be actually near at hand. What is there then in the senti- 
ments of our epistle, inconsistent with these views of Paul as understood 
by him? 

(7) ‘Our author says nothing of Christ as judge of the world, but uni- 
formly attributes judgment to God. Nor does he say a word of Hades, 
Gehenna, Satan (excepting in 2: 14, 15), the resurrection of the dead, and 
generally of the closing scene of all things; of which matters Paul treats 
so copiously, p. 95 seq.’ 

But surely the final close or destruction of all material things, is suffi- 
ciently intimated in 1: 10 seq.; future punishment in 4: 11 seq. 6: 4 seq. 
10 : 26 seq. 12:29. In fact, where is there any thing in all the Bible, on the 
subject of future punishment, more awful and severe than these passages ? 
That the names Hades and Gehenna do not occur in our epistle, would be 
a singular argument to prove that Paul did not write it. Where in all 
the acknowledged epistles of Paul, is either of these words to be found, 
excepting in one solitary quotation in 1 Cor. 15:55, which exhibits “dng 2 
As to Satan, this appellation does not indeed occur; yet its equivalent 
διάβολος occurs, in 2:14. But the word Satan does not occur in the 
epistles to the Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 2 Timothy, 
Titus, and Philemon; are these epistles therefore spurious ? 

In regard to the resurrection of the dead, it is sufficient to refer to 6: 2, 
and to what is implied in 12: 22 seq. The passage in 11: 35 has refer- 
ence to a resurrection different from the one now in question. 

That the writer of our epistle did not make frequent mention of these 
topics, is easily accounted for on the ground that he was more immedi- 
ately occupied with other ones. Are there not several of Paul’s acknow- 
ledged epistles, which omit the same topics? But who will undertake to 
prove from this, that they are spurious ? 

(8) ‘But not a word of Christ’s resurrection ; a theme on which Paul 


- 


ᾧ 27. OBJECTIONS BY SCHULZ. 187 


every where descants, p. 97. Bleek also avers, in respect to this, that 
‘Paul seldom mentions the death of Christ, without at the same time 
mentioning his resurrection, p. 308.’ But on the whole, he lays less stress 
upon the omission of this last topic in our epistle than Schulz does. 

In respect to this subject it may be said, in the first place, that the 
representation of Bleek is an extravagant one, as it regards the topic of 
the resurrection of Christ. Where in all his epistles has Paul given this 
topic such remarkable prominency, except in 1 Cor. xv.? Often as the 
apostle mentions the death of Christ in his second epistle to the Corinthi- 
ans, where has he insisted on his resurrection? Where is it in the epis- 
tle to the Galatians ? Where is it made prominent in the epistles to the 
Ephesians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 'Ti- 
tus? Assertions at hazard, on such ἃ topic, should not be made; and 
one must not expect to find credit for them, among those who investigate 
for themselves. 

Besides, what does Heb. 13: 20 mean? And what is implied in 8: 1. 
1:3. 10:12. 12:2. 2:9. 5:7—9? Are there not several epistles of 
Paul, where this subject is less frequently alluded to, or implied, than in 
our epistle ? 

(9) ‘If Paul did not become wholly unlike himself and change his very 
nature, he could not have written the epistle to the Hebrews ; which not 
only contains ideas foreign to his, but opposed to his, p. 101.’ 

This is assertion, not argument. The only way to convince those who 
differ in opinion from us, is to offer arguments for what we avouch ; not 
merely to assume or assert it to be true. 

(10) ‘The grand point of Paul’s doctrines is, that Christ is the Saviour 
of all; that he died or made atonement for all. There is nothing of this 
in our epistle. Paul every where makes belief in Christ essential to sal- 
vation, and looks with contempt upon Jewish rites and ceremonies. But 
our author evidently handles Judaism with a sparing hand, and treats 
with honour the shell, from which he endeavours to extract the nut, p. 
102 seq.’ 

In regard to the first of these allegations, the reader is referred to Heb. 
2:9—11. 5:9. 9:15, 28. 18:10; which afford hints sufficiently plain, 
that the writer did not regard the Messiah as the Saviour of the Jews 
only. But to treat, in our epistle, of the extent of his saivation among the 
Gentiles, plainly was not apposite to the particular design he had in view ; 
and he might abstain from this topic, out of regard to the prejudices which 
those whom he addressed probably entertained (in common with most 
Jews) respecting it. Are there none of the acknowledged Pauline epis- 
tles, which do not treat of this subject? And must Paul always bring it 
into view, whether to do so would be timely or untimely, apposite or 
inapposite to the object of his epistle ? 

In respect to the Judaizing spirit of the writer, I must refer once more 
to chap. vii—x.; and what has already been said above, on examining 
the fourth objection. And with regard to belief in Christ as essential to 
salvation, the great object of all the epistle to the Hebrews was to urge it. 
Dispute with one who denies this, would surely be in vain. 

23 


178 § 90. opsECTIONS BY SCHULZ. 


(11) ‘Paul no where represents Christ as a priest, nor his intercession 
as procuring favours for men, p. 109 seq.’ 

In respect to this objection, I refer the reader to what has already been 
said above. 

(12) ‘Paul has no where drawn a parallel between Christ and Moses, 
prvi’ 

But he did something very much like it, when he represented Moses 
and Christ as mediators, Gal. 8:19 566. And if he has not formally done 
it in any of his acknowledged epistles, it is enough to say, it was because 
the occasion did not call for it. 

(18) ‘Our author says nothing of the kingdom of God, or the kingdom 
of Satan, or of the gospel of Jesus Christ; ideas predominant in Paul’s 
epistles, p. 115.’ 

But is not a kingdom ascribed to Christ in Heb. 1: 8,9. 1:10 seq. 2: 
7 seq. 10:13. 12: 2? And are not Christians repr esented as belonging 
to it, in 12:28? And are the second epistle to the Corinthians and the 
epistle to the Philippians not genuine, because the first of these phrases is 
not in them? Is not the power or reign of Satan recognized in Heb. 2: 
14,15? And as to εὐαγγέλιον, see 4:2. 4:6. Apply too the same 
method of reasoning to Paul’s acknowledged epistles. Huayyshifa is a 
favourite word with this apostle ; yet Philippians, Colossians, 2 Thessalo- 
nians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, do not exhibit it. The 
word εὐαγγέλιον, too, is not found in the epistle to Titus. But is not the 
thing which it indicates, found there? It is; and so it is in Hebrews, as 
frequently as the nature of the case required; e.g. 1:1. 2: 1,3. 4: 1,2. 
ΠΟ. 0: 1.56. 10:  Π18.: 8.9. Π7ε 

(14) ‘ How such expressions respeouns the resurrection as occur in 1 
15:5 seq. Rom. 16: 4. 11:15. Phil. 3: 20 seq. Col. 2: 13. 1 Thess. 4: 
15 seq. 2 Thess. π. 2 Tim. 2: 18, with Acts 24: 15. 26:6 seq., are to 
be reconciled with the views of the resurrection presented in our epistle, 
those who defend the genuineness of the epistle may be called on to ac- 
count for, p. 116.’ 

In some of these citations, I can find no reference at all to the resur- 
rection. In others (e.g. Col. 2: 19), there is simply a figurative or moral 
use of the term. As to the remainder, I can perceive no discrepancy 
between them and Heb. 6: 2. 11:35 and what is implied in 12: 22 seq. 
As Schulz has not pointed out in what the discrepancy consists, | am 
unable to apprehend it. 

(15) ‘But 1 Cor. 15: 24 seq. is at variance with Heb. 1: 2, 8 seq. 12, 
13. 7: 24 seq., comp. v. 16. 9:14. p. 1167 

Just as much, [ answer, as it is with Luke 1: 33. Dan. 2: 44. 7: 14. 
Mic. 4: 7. John 12: 34. Is.9:6. Ps. 89: 36. 2Sam. 7: 16; and no more. 
What interpreter, who has carefully studied the idiom of the Scriptures, 
does not know that nb4iss ait ca , and εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων, are 
applied to things, to w vhich a time of continuance is assigned that is not 
liable to interruption by any adventitious circumstances, and which are to 
endure the full period for which they were designed ? So it is with the 
world, the mountains, the hills; they are DD4y> , εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας. So also 
the mediatorial reign is not to be interrupted, but to continue until all the 


δ 27. OBJECTIONS BY SCHULZ. 179 


designs of God in the redemption of men are completed. Then, of course, 
it must cease ; as no more mediatorial offices are to be performed. 

And why too should Schulz suggest such a consideration, as a proof 
that Paul did not write the epistle to the Hebrews, when he makes no 
difficulty at all in suggesting, that the sacred writers are not unfrequently 
at variance with themselves? ΤῸ allege the fact of variance, then, either 
with each other or with themselves, is no valid argument, on the ground 
upon which he stands. He is not here consistent with himself. And be- 
sides, has not Pau! himself recognized the perpetuity of Christ’s dominion, 
in his acknowledged epistles ? See Rom. 9: 5. 

(16) ‘The writer of our epistle, entangled with types and allegories, 
knows not how to say any thing respecting Christianity, except what he 
finds an analogy for in Judaism ; so that his work is made up of parallels 
between the old and new dispensation, spun out to an excessive length..... 
The limited circle in which this writer moves, his evident deficiency in 
activity of mind and in unfolding his own views, are altogther unlike the 
active, creative mind of Paul, that master-spirit, who moves with such 
perfect freedom, and controls at pleasure all his own views, without any 
subjection to the influence of others, or even being at all affected by any 
thing of Jewish origin; all of which was entirely at his command..... 
Whoever should attribute this singular’ production to Paul, would show 
that he was little acquainted with him, p. 119,’ 

Yet (in p. 124) Schulz says, “Gne finds in the unknown author [of our 
epistle |, more orderly deduction, more learned accuracy, and for the most 
part a well arranged, gradual ascent, from the point where he starts, 
which he usually establishes by quotations from the Old Testament, to 
the sublime region to which, as true, eternal, and heavenly, he directs 
every thing, and where he ends every thing; finally, more luxurious, ora- 
torical qualities, than in Paul.” 

How this consists with the preceding representation, the writer of both 
may well be required to show. The reader, 1 am sure, must find diffi- 
culty enough to make them harmonize. But at any rate, the accusation 
that the writer of the epistle to the Hebrews is not master of his own 
subject and own thoughts, is, so far as I know, new; and one which, (as 
I must confidently believe until I see more evidence to the contrary), it is 
unnecessary to answer. 

(17) ‘Heb. 2: 1,2 proves that Paul could not have been the writer of 
our epistle; for he did not receive his gospel from others, but was imme- 
diately taught it by Christ himself, Gal. 1: 11, 12. 5: 15—19. p. 125 seq.’ 

Bleek (p. 285 seq.) has repeated this objection, and insisted on it with 
much earnestness, and at great length; and in his Review, p. 21, he 
asserts, that 1 have ‘answered the objection of Schulz in a very brief 
and superficial way.’ 

If this be the case, then it will be well for me to look to it once more, 
and lay before the reader the materials from which he can make up his 
own judgment, independently of Bleek or of myself. 

I remark, then, in the first place, that if the use of the first person plu- 
ral by the writer, necessarily makes him one in all respects with those 
whom he is addressing, then the author of our epistle did himself need 


[9 27. OBJECTIONS BY SCHULZ. 


the admonitions which he has so powerfully and feelingly addressed to 
others ; see 2:1, 3. 3:6. 4: 1, 2, 11, 13,16. 6: 1—8, 18,19. 10: 22—25, 
26, 39. 11: 40. 12: 1, 9, 10, 28. 13: 10, 13, 15. Nay, he must have in- 
cluded himself among those who were shaken in their Christian belief, 
and who were in imminent hazard of final apostacy. 

On the other hand ; nothing can be plainer, than that he uses we or ye 
indifferently, for the persons whom he addresses; 6. g. Heb. 4: 1, let 
us fear ....lest any one of you, etc. ; we, in 12: 1, 2; ye,in 12:3—8; we, 


in 12:9,10; ye, in 12: 14—25; we, in 13: 25—28, and often in the — 


same manner elsewhere, the address being still most manifestly made to 
the very same persons. He often employs, also, the first person plural 
(ἡμεῖς) to designate merely himself; 6. g.in Heb. 2:5. 6:9, 11. 13: 18. 
This, in like manner, he interchanges with the first person singular ; e. g. 
13: 18, comp. 13: 19, 22, 23. 

The same use of the first person plural runs through all the Pauline 
epistles : 6. g. ἡμεῖς and ἐγώ for the writer himself, Gal. 1:8. comp. 1: 
9—24. Gal. 2: 5. comp. 2: 1—4, and 2: 6, 7, and so very often elsewhere. 
So ἡμεῖς and ὑμεῖς for the persons addressed, Gal. 3: 1—12. 3: 13—25. 
3: 26—29. 4: 3—5. 4:6—20. 4: 26—3], et alibi. 

The substantial answer to the allegations of Schulz and Bleek, is, that 
the figurative method of speaking denominated ἀνακοίνωσις, in which the 
author includes himself although he does not mean himself, is often em- 
ployed by all good writers and speakers. Bleek allows, (what indeed it 
is impossible to deny), that in warnings and exhortations such is the 6886, 
because the writer means to concede when he uses the first person plural, 
that he himself is bound to regard the like warnings, etc. But where the 
writer should evidently he excepted from the subject of the declaration, 
he thinks it a plain case that ἀνακοίνωσις cannot be used, and says that no 
instance of this nature has yet been produced. 

But this method of meeting the argument is not satisfactory. For ex- 
ample; in Heb. 6: 1—3 the writer says, ‘ Let us go on to attain sublimer 
degrees of Christian knowledge, not laying again the foundation of re- 
pentance from dead works, ete., [which surely he did not himself do].... 
and this we will do, if God permit, etc? Now what is it that “we will 
do?”  Piainly, ‘ we will go on to higher degrees of Christian knowledge, 
and not lay again the foundation of repentance from dead works, etc. , as 
we have done.’ Now if one should reply and say, ‘The writer may be 
included among those who are going on to acquire more Christian knowl- 
edge ; yet I would ask, is he among those ‘who are laying again the 
foundation of repentance from dead works, etc. ?? Surely not. Nor is 
ποιήσομεν in v. 8, either exhortation or warning, but promise. The whole 
may be summed up in a word ; does the writer promise for himself, in the 
same manner as for his readers, ‘ that he will quit building up the old foun- 
dations, and advance to the superstructure?’ Truly he does not mean to 
put himself among such as were building the old foundations. 

In Heb. 10: 24, 25, does the writer, when he says καταγοῶμεν x. τ. A, 
mean to include himself among the ἐγκαταλείποντες τὴν ἐπισυναγωγὴν 
ἑαυτῶν Most plainly not; and then that the first person plural here 
means no more than the second, is clear from its being exchanged for 
the second (βλέπετε) before the sentence is ended. 


. 


§ 27. OBJECTIONS BY SCHULZ. IST 


But not to dwell on other passages in our epistle, let us see how it is 
in other epistles of the New Testament. 1] select only a few. 1 Cor. 11: 
31, 32, when the apostle says, παιδευόμεϑα etc., does he not relate a fact, 
and not a mere general principle, as Bleek suggests, p. 291? And was 
the apostle himself chastised, because he violated the decorum of the 
sacramental table? And when Paul says, Eph. 4: 14, ἵνα μηκέτι ὠμὲν 
γήπιοι, does he imply that he was to be included among those who had 
thus far been νήπιοι Ὁ In 1 Thess. 4: 15—17, he speaks of " ἡμεῖς of ζῶντες, 
ete. being caught up alive to meet the Lord in the air, at the time of the 
general resurrection 7 did Paul himself, during his natural life, expect to 
to see that day? Bleek, indeed, answers this question in the affirmative ; 
but it is making the very same mistake that the Thessalonians made, 
whom Paul so amply corrects in his second epistle, chap. II. 

Turn we now to another apostle. James says of the tongue, “ Therewith 
bless ΜῈ God even the Father; and therewith curse ΜῈ men, who are 
made in his image.” That he is not speaking here of a faculty (that of 
using the tongue), but of a fact, is clear from the context. Does he mean, 
then, to include himself as cursing ‘the image of God’ with his own 
tongue? His vehement reproof may answer this question. 

Prof. Bleek will find in these remarks, I would fain hope, some evidence 
that I am not disposed to treat the subject in question in a manner, ‘ either 
brief or superficial.’ When he urges upon us the opinion of Luther and 
Calvin, which coincides with his own in respect to the text under con- 
sideration, he does not mean, 1 trust, that we are bound to admit this, un- 
less arguments can be adduced to support it. But where are they ? The 
position that we, us, are always used so that the writer may be included, is 
true if we construe any and every passage of Scripture as declaring only 
what is predicable of human nature in itself considered ; for what one 
man does or suffers, another may do or suffer. But this position can 
never be conceded in a matter of actual interpretation, where the sole 
question is, What idea did the writer mean to convey? E. g. did he 
mean, in the above quoted passages, to designate himself as a participator 
in the things there affirmed respecting ἡμεῖς 2 On this subject, I make 
the appeal, without any fears as to the result, to every unprejudiced reader, 

Bleek asks (p. 292), ‘how the exhortation, Let us fear etc., would ap- 
pear in the mouth of the sinless Redeemer ; in order to shew that those 
who did utter such exhortations, must have felt that they themselves 
needed such warnings, ete. But this does not settle the question. The 
question is, Did the writers mean actually to include themselves, in such 
declarations as those above ? Or is it the usual ἀνακοίγωσις 3 Nor is 
this proposed text applicable to determine a case of the nature that is now 
under consideration. It does not follow, because that apostles were 
peccable and Christ was not so, that the apostles were peccant in all cases 
where they speak of others as being so. They are contradistinguished 
from those whom they address, in some of these cases, by the state of 
fact, although not by any natural impossibility. 

And why, moreover, should not ἀνακοίνωσις be found in the epistles of 
the New Testament, as well as in other writings of the like kind? In- 
deed it must be confessed, that probability lies strongly on this side. 


182 § 27. OBJECTIONS BY SCHULZ. 
- 


One word more on the passage before us, viz. Heb. 9: 8,4. The wri- 

ter begins the paragraph with δεῖ... ἢ μ ἃ ¢ προσέχειν... μήποτε 1 HQ α O- 
dua@mey, i. 6. all in the first person plural. He then goes on to say, πῶς 
ἡ μεῖς ἐχφευξόμεϑα x.t. 4.3 after which he immediately subjoins, before 
he finishes this very sentence, the contested ἥτις (σωτηρία)... ὑπὸ τῶν 
ἀχουσάντων sic ἡμᾶς ἐβεβαιώϑη ; from which Bleek draws such important 
conclusions, by comparing this with Gal. 1:1, 11, 12, 15 seq. 2: 6. 1 Cor. 
9:1. 11:23. Eph. 3: 2,3. But what room can there be for such conclu- 
sions to be fairly made? How could the writer close his sentence in any 
other manner than that in which he had begun and continued it? This 
was all in the first person plural. Of course, he could not well say, with- 
out infringing upon the grammatical construction and symmetry of his 
sentence, εἰς ὕ μ ἃ ς ἐβεβανώϑη, but must write, εἰς ἢ μ ἃ ς EBay. If 
now the word ἡμεῖς is to be rigidly pressed into a literal and exact mean- 
ing in the last part of the sentence before us, then of course I may rea- 
sonably insist on its being so taken in the first part. The necessary im- 
plication wouldconsequently be, thatthe writer himself of our epistle was 
neglecting to give due heed to the declarations of the gospel, and was in 
special danger tov παραῤῥύειν ; that he was neglecting, or in imminent 
danger of neglecting, the great salvation, and consequently of barring up 
all the avenues of escape from the aggravated doom of those who slight- 
ed the gospel. Will any ingenuous reader, who has not a case to make 
out, venture to say that the writer means to have his readers recognize 
himself, as being in the same danger and guilt with those whom he was 
warning ? 

The true method of interpreting εἰς ἡμᾶς ἐβεβαιώϑη seems to me, plain- 
ly, to be the same as that of-construing ἐν ἡμῖν,---παρέδοσαν ἡμῖν, in Luke 
1: 1,2; where evidently ἡμῖν is neither more nor less than Christians, 
followers of Christ, as Kuinoel has rightly interpreted it. Thus under- 
stood, (and in the like way it is to be understood in a multitude of cases), no 
argument at all can be derived from it in support of the position which 
Bleek maintains, and of course none against the Pauline origin of our 
epistle. 

One word more, and I close this topic. If ὑπὸ τῶν ἀκουσάντων εἰς 
ἡ μᾶς ἐβεβαιώϑη, in chap. 2: 8, proves that the writer of our epistle must 
necessarily be reckoned among those who received a knowledge of the 
gospel at second hand, and not from Christ himself; then does ἐλάλησεν 
ἡμῖν ἐν υἱῷ in 1: 1, of course and necessarily prove that the very same 
writer had communications made to him by the Son of God himself; in 
other words, the same expressions prove that the writer has asserted two 
different and opposite things in the course of 15 verses, It is impossible 
to escape from this ; and this is enough to put an end to this controversy. 

(18) ‘The manner of citing or appealing to the Old Testament, by 
Paul and by the writer of the epistle to the Hebrews, is very different. 
Paul appeals to it as a written record ; but the writer of our epistle every 
where cites it as the immediate word of God, or of the Holy Ghost. 
Paul’s formulas of citation are, 7έγθαπται, καϑὼς γέγφαπται, ἢ γφαφὴ λέγει, 
ἐγράφη, κατὰ τὸ γεγραμμένον, ὃ λόχος γεγραμμένος, Morons γράφει---λέγει, 
δ νόμος λέχει, ἐν Ι|ωὐσέως νόμῳ γέγραπται, Ζ.αβὶδ λέγει, Hoviiag λέγειυ---- 


§ 27. OBJECTIONS BY SCHULZ. Is3 


κράζει, ἐν τῷ “Ὡσηὲ λέγει, and κατὰ τὸ εἰρημένον ; which are not ged: ina 
single instance in the epistle to the Hebrews. Instead of these formulas 
the author uses λέγει---ὠμαρτύρει τό πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, λέγει ὃ ϑεός, or the 
abridgements of these formulas, viz. λέγει, εἴρηκε, μαρτύρει, φησί. Does not 
such a diversity of style necessarily imply diversity of authorship ? p. 120 
seq.’ 

To this representation of Schulz, Seyffarth has not only assented, but 
in his Essay on the Peculiarities of the Epistle to the Hebrews (§§ 50—60) , he 
has placed the modes of appeal to the Jewish Scriptures at the head of 
these peculiarities, so far as the style of the author is concerned ; “ refer- 
enda hue est, prae caeteris omnibus, loca Vet. Test. laudandi singularis 
ratio.” Schulz moreover says, ‘that plainly Paul makes less frequent 
use, in general, of the Old Testament Scriptures, than is made of them in 
the epistle to the Hebrews ; an objection which has been frequently al- 
leged by others. _Bleek, in his recent work (pp. 338—381), has laboured 
more abundantly and at greater length to confirm this view of the sub- 
ject, and to deduce from it an argument against the Pauline origin of our 
epistle. 

The result of an attentive, frequent, and recently repeated examination 
of our epistle, and of all the acknowledged Pauline epistles, in respect to 
the mode and frequency of quotation, has led me to conclusions somewhat 
different from those which Schulz and others have adopted. I shall 
present them, with my reasons for adopting them, as summarily as the 
nature of the case now admits. 

(a) The writer of the epistle to the Hebrews is by no means uniform, 
in his mode of appeal to the Jewish Scriptures. In eighteen cases, viz. 
Το 0. {7 2s hes As. 910. D2, On. ὡς 17. (sche voltas 8: Oe Ise: 
10:5. 10:8 10:9. 10:30. 12:26. 13:5, he has used ‘eizep, εἴρηκε, 
λέγέι, λέγων, μαρτύρει, φησὶ, With a Nominative never expressed. In four- 
teen of these cases, we may gather from the context that ϑεός or κύριος is 
the Nominative probably implied, i. e. the one which the writer meant his 
readers should ἘΠῚ ΣΝ Four of them rave Χριστός or Ingots for an im- 
plied Nominative, viz. 2: 12. 10: 5. 10:8. 10:9. The expressed Nom- 
inatives are three; viz. τὸ πρεῦμα “τὸ Siok 3:7. 10: 15, and Sede, 6: 14, 
expressed, however, in ual an indirect manner. 

In five cases Bae which are introduced merely with πάλιν, καί, or δέ, 
viz. 1:5. 1:8. 1:10. 2: 19. 10 : 80, but stand connected with a preced- 
ing taba the grammatical connection requires us to supply εἰπε, 
λέγων», λέγει, etc., i. 6. κύριος or ϑεὸς λέγει, εἶπε, ete. In two cases of the 
like nature, viz. 2:13. 2:14, ᾿Τησοῦς or Χριστός is the implied Nom- 
inative. 

In the whole twenty eight instances of quotation, there are tweuty five, 
then, in which the Nominative is not expresse d; in nineteen of which it 
probably i is ϑεός, and Χριστός in the other six. There are two cases only, 
in which the Nominative τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον is expressed ; and one only 
where θεός is actually inserted, and this in a way indirect. 

If one should trust to the representations of Schulz and Seyffarth, he 
_ would of course be led to believe, that these now mentioned are all the 
kinds of quotation which our epistle presents. This, however, is not the 
case. In 2:6, we have διεμαρτύρατο δέ mov tis, viz. “Ιαβίὶδ ; in 3: 15, ἐν 


184 § 26. oBsEcTIONS BY SCHULZ. 


τῷ ee when wt is said, (like ΝΣ Ὁ in the Mishna); in 4: 4, εἴρηκε 
γάρ που, SC. ἡ γραφή plainly, which formula is virtually repeated by πάλιν 
in 4:5; ἴῃ 4: 7, we find ἐν Ζαβὶδ λέγων, saying by David, where ἢ γραφή 
may be the ΡΝ ΕΝ, comp. Rom. 11:2; in 9: 20, ΠΙωῦσῆς---λέγων 5 
ἹΠ 11 : 18, ἐλαλήϑη (like “7283 2) 3 in 12: 5, παρακλήσεως ; in 12:20, τὸ 
διαστελλόμενον ; in 12: 21, Mwioje εἶπε: in 12: 27, τὸ δέ; in 13: 6, ὥστε 
ἡμᾶς λέγειν, so that we may say. Besides this, we have i in 3: 2, 5. 10: 37. 
11: 21, and 12: 6, quotations without any direct sign or notice of appeal ; 
not to nention several references or partial quotations which might easily 
be subjoined. In the whole there are fifteen instances of quotation, (i. 6. 
about three exghths of all the quotations), where the appeal is different from 
that which Schulz and Seyffarth attribute to our author, and on which 
they have built their argument against the Pauline origin of our epistle. 
Let us now compare the method of Paul. 

(b) There is a similar variety of appeal in the acknowledged Pauline 
epistles. Nearly all of this variety, however, is made by the use of 
γράφω, or λέγω and its synonymes εἴπω and ῥέω 3 just as in our epistle.* 

I, ΓΤΡάΦΩ. (1) Καϑὼς γέγραπται, Rom. 1:17. 2:24. 3:4,10. 4:17. 
8, ::96./,92,13; 30. 10215. “11 58; 26. 15: 9.9. 21." 1 Con Peele eee: 
2 Cor. 8: 15. 9:9; in all eighteen. (2) ᾿ς γέγραπται, 1 Cor. 10:7. (3) 
Οὕτω καὶ γέγραπται, 1 Cor. 15: 45. (4) Κατὰ τὸ γεγφαμμένον, 2 Cor. 4:13. 
(5) Ὃ λόγος ὃ γεγραμμένος, 1 Cor. 15: 54. (6) Ἐν τῷ νόμῳ γέγραπται, 1 
Cor. 14:21. (7) Ἔν τῷ Μωσέως νόμῳ γέγραπται, 1 Cor.9:9. (8) 
Moivors γράφει, Rom. 10: 5, (the only example of the use of active voice 
of this verb, when ealeyed in the manner under consideration). (9) 
Τέγραπται γάρ, Rom. 12: 19, 14:11. 1 Cor. 1: 19. 8: 19. Gal. 3: 10, 13. 
4: 22, 275 in ‘all eight. 


If. ΖΕ and its synonymes. (10) ᾿ὐῤῥήϑη αὐτὴ, Rom. 9: 12. (11) 
Kadoas προείρηχεν ᾿"σαΐας, Rom. 9: 99, (19) ᾿Εσαΐας κράζει, Rom. 9: 97. 
(13) Κατὰ τὸ εἰρημένον, Rom. 4: 18, (14) “έγει 40,815, Rom. 4:6. 11:19. 
᾿Εσαΐας λέγει, Rom. 10: 16, 90, 21. 15:12. Π]ωϊσῆς λέγει, Rom. 10: 19. 
(15) Agyes ὃ χρηματισμός, Rom. 11: 4. (10) Ἢ δὲ ἐκ πίστεως δικαιοσύνη 
οὕτω λέγει, Rom. 10: 6. (17) Ὃ γόμος ἔλεγεν, Rom. 7: 7. (18) Ἢ γραφὴ 
λέγει, Rom. 4: 8. 9: 17. 10: 11. 11:2. 15: 10, 11 (where 7 γραφή is the 
probable Nominative); Gal. 4: 30. 1 Tim. 5:18. There are other in- 
stances of the like nature, in which λέγω and εἴπω are employed, and 
where χύριος or Seog is the Nominative. For a special reason, I reserve 
these to be exhibited under another head. 

171. There are a few formulas which are peculiar, and which I shall 
group together under No. (19), viz. ἐπα) γελίας γὰρ ὃ λόγος οὗτος, Rom. 
9: 8. TVs 1 Cor. 10: 20.—To γάρ ἘΠ ΣΝ τῷ, Rom. 18 : 9.—Ey τῷ, Gal. 
5: 14.- -Καὶ πάλιν [i. 6. λέγει or γέγραπται), Rom. 15:11. 1 Cor. 3: 20. 

IV. There a considerable number of citations without any formula of 


* In consequence of the recent elaborate effort of Bleek, to prove a discrepancy 
between our epistle and the acknowledged writings of Paul in respect to the 
subject of quotations, I have diligently re- -examined the whole matter since the 
first edition of this work, and now submit the results of the same, in a form 
somewhat different from that which appeared in the first edition. 


§ 27. OBJECTIONS BY SCHULZ. 185 


notice ; viz. (20) Rom. 9: 7. 10: 19, 18. 1 Cor. 2: 16. 10: 26. 15: 25,27, 
32. 2 Cor. 9:7. 13: 1. Gal. 3: 11, 12. Eph. 5:31, 2 Tim. 2: 19 bis; in 
all fifteen. 

It is possible that there may be some one or more instances, which 
have escaped my notice ; but I believe that the above view of the formu- 
las of Paul’s quotations, (including those that are to be inserted under the 
next head), will be found, to say the least, as complete as any that has 
hitherto been exhibited. At all events, not a single instance is purposely 
omitted. 

The reader has now the whole of Paul’s formulas, in his acknowledged 
epistles, placed before him; and he can decide for himself, whether there 
is not a variely of manner in the method of making quotations. We shall 
have occasion to recur to the facts contained in the above representation, 
more than once in the sequel. 

(c) Schulz has asserted, that Paul no where uses the formulas of appeal, 
ϑεός λέγει, κύριος λέγει; and from this he draws the conclusion, that this 
apostle could not have written our epistle, because such, he avers, is every 
where the formula in this epistle. 

With these assertions Seyffarth coincides; and Bleek, in his recent 
work, has aimed substantially to prove the same thing, but has exhibited 
a much fuller view of the actual methods of quotation than either of the 
above named writers, and shewn more candour and impartiality and cau- 
tion in judging, although he comes to nearly the same results. As this, 
however, is a case in which facts and not assertions are concerned, let us 
make the appeal to facts. 

That Paul does sometimes appeal, like the author of the epistle 
to the Hebrews, to the direct words of God himself, and not mere- 
ly to the Scripture, (which is the more usual method of the apostle), is 
clear from the following examples; viz. (21) Aéyes κύριος, 2 Cor. 6: 17.— 
Aéyev κύριος παντοχράτωρ, 2 Cor. 6: 18.—Kadwe εἶπεν 6 ϑεός, 2 Cor. 6: 
16.—So in Rom. 9: 15, λέγει, se. Feds, which is implied, as will be seen 
by inspecting the preceding verse ; Rom. 9: 25, ὡς καὶ ἐν τῷ “Ὡσηὲ λέγει, 
sc. ϑεός, as appears by vs. 22—24; 2 Cor. 6: 2, λέγει, 56. ϑεύς, as v. 1 
shews; Gal. 3: 16, ov λέγει, sc. ϑεός, as the nature of the case, and the 
context in Genesis shews; Eph. 4:8, διὸ λέγει, sc. ϑεός probably, comp. 
vs. 6,7; Eph. 5: 14, λέγει, sc. Geog probably. If it be objected to this 
instance, that the passage quoted is not in the Hebrew Scriptures, this 
will not alter the nature of the appeal. Wherever it is, or was, the writer 
appeals to it as Scripture. Whether he quoted some part of the Old Tes- 
tament ad sensum, or whether he referred to some other book, may be 
very difficult now to decide ; but that his quotation was viewed by him 
to be of such a nature as a scriptural one, must be conceded ; and that 
ϑεός is the most probable Nominative, I cannot help thinking will also be 
conceded. In Rom. 9: 12, 26679 αὐτῇ plainly refers to Jehovah as the 
speaker ; comp. Gen. 25:23. In substance, λέγει ὃ χρηματισμός, Rom. 
11: 4, belongs to this same class of texts, inasmuch as the words of God 
to Elijah are directly cited. 

The allegation, then, that Paul in quoting from the Scriptures, “ always 
cites them simply as Scripture, and not as the words of God ;” and that 


24 


186 §27. OBJECTIONS BY SCHULZ. 


“the writer of our epistle is entirely opposite to him in this respect ;” is 
plainly contradicted by the above examples. Paul, in common with our 
epistle, appeals to the words of God as such. Nor can it be objected here, 
that in Paul the noun ϑεός (as Nominative to λέγει) is not expressed, since 
this is never expressed, except once indirectly, in the epistle to the He- 
brews. 

I concede to Bleek, that Rom. 15: 10, (to which he should have added 
Rom. 15:11, καὺ πάλιν se. λέγει), and 1 Cor, 6: 16, where λέγειν is used 
without a Nominative, most probably have ἢ γραφή as their implied 
Nominative. 

But in order to diminish the force of the above appeal to facts, Bleek 
remarks (p. 379), that ‘Paul never introduces God as speaking, except 
when the words are properly his own, i. e. uttered in the first person ; 
whereas the writer of our epistle cites the words of Scripture as the 
words of God, even when the third person is used, and God cannot prop- 
erly be considered as the speaker.’ As instances of this latter fact, he 
appeals to Heb. 1: 0, 7, 8. 4:4, 7. 7: 21. 10: 30. 

I cannot feel, however, that much stress is to be laid upon this. Sure- 
ly the reader of the New Testament Scriptures need not be told, that the 
writers of them considered the Old Testament as ϑεόπγευστος, as the 
word of God; and that they habitually appealed to them as such, as well 
as called them by this name. Nor need he be told, that God, in the Old 
Testament, often speaks in the third person, as well as the first, or speaks 
of himself as a third person, in the same manner that another would 
speak of him; 6. g. Is. 1: 20, 28. 3:17, 18. 6:12. 7: 11. 8:5—7, 13, 19. 
10: 26, ete., in places without number. Besides, the examples of Bleek 
are not all certain. In Heb. 1: 6, 7, 8, the quotation after all, is not di- 
rectly made by λέγει, i. e. the force of Aéysv does not fall on the quotation 
as such. The writer affirms, that God speaks concerning his Son, what 
is meant by the words which follow ; comp. v. 5. As to the examples in 
Heb. 4: 4, 7, the first evidently has ἢ γραφή for the Nominative to εἴρηκε, 
as the word πού plainly shews. In Heb. 7: 21, the quotation is from Ps. 
110: 4, and is wholly inapposite to the object of Bleek, since God is sim- 
ply introduced by it (and so in the Psalm) as addressing the Messiah, and 
is directly affirmed to be the speaker, and is appropriately so. In Heb. 
10: 30, καὶ πάλιν refers indeed to God ; but then the words which.follow 
are in the third person, just as they are in innumerable cases in the Old 
‘Testament. What argument can be built, now, on facts of such a nature ? 
I think we may reasonably answer, None. 

Bleek further states, that ‘the writer of our epistle appeals to Scripture 
by the use of λέγει--ριαρτύρει τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, Heb. 3:7. 10:15; and 
that Christ is represented as appropriating the words of the Old Testa- 
ment to himself, Heb. 2: 11, 18. 10:5, 8; all of which is foreign to the 
method of Paul.’ 

But what does this prove? Merely that the writer had occasion to 
make an appeal to Scripture here, in a manner different from that in 
Paul’s acknowledged epistles, and accordingly has done so. Nothing 
more than this, surely, can be urged from these facts, unless we can 
prove from the quotations in one part of Paul’s acknowledged epistles 


' 


§ 27. ΟΒΙΕΟΤΊΟΝΒ BY SCHULZ. 187 


that 7” did not write the other in which chavo is a marked ΟΝ of 
quotation, or no quotation at all. But the illustration of this, 1 reserve 
for the next head. 

In regar d to the assertion of Schulz and Seyflarth, that ϑεός, Χριστός, 
or πνεῦμα ἅγιον, is always the Nominative to λέγει, εἶστε, etc., in the epis- 
tle to the Hebrews,’ the following formulas may be consulted ; viz. Heb. 
2:6, διεμαρτύρατο δὲ που τίς, [sc. Ζ4αβίδ]; 4:4, εἴρηκε γάρ a ἢ γραφή]; 
which is repeated by necessary implication, in 4:5; Mwtojs.... λέγων 
9: 20; Muvore εἶπε, (either a quotation of a sacred traditional saying, or 
a reference to the Scriptures ad sensum), 12:21; all cases of the same 
nature as those which occur in Paul’s acknowledged epistles. Besides 
these we have, as has been noted before, a quotation referred to by call- 
ing it παράκλησις, 12:5, (comp. Rom. 11: 4 χρηματισμὸς λέγει) : and in 
13: 6, we are pointed to a text of Scripture by the expression, ὥστε ἡμᾶς 
λέγειν. There are several instances, also, of quotation without any for- 
mula of appeal, 6. g. 3: 2,5. 10: 37. 11: 21. 12:63 just as in Paul’s ac- 
knowledged epistles. 

(d) There is as great a difference between Paul’s acknowledged epistles 
themselves, in regard to the formulas and the frequency of quotation 
from the Old Testament, as there is between the epistle to the Hebrews 
and some of Paul’s acknowledged epistles ; nay even a greater difference. 
E. g. in the first epistle to the Corinthians, the only formula of quotation 
is the verb γέγραπται, viz. 1 Cor.1:19. 1:31. 2:9. 3:19. 3:20. 9:9. 
10:7. 14: 21. 15:24, 54; one case only being. excepted, 6:16, Five 
times quotation is made without any formula, viz. 1 Cor. 2: 16. 10: 26. 
15:25, 27. 15:32. Now in the epistle to the Romans, out of forty eight 
quotations, only sixteen are introduced with the forraula γέγραπταν; the 
others exhibiting all the variety above described. 

On the other hand, the second epistle to the Corinthians is divided be- 
tween the formulas with roapar, and λέγω or cinw; e.g. καϑὼς yéyoun- 
ται, 8:15. 9:93 κατὰ τὸ γεγραμμένον, 4:13; λέγει or εἶπεν, 6:2, 16, 17, 
18. Two quotations are without a formula, viz.9: 7 and 13: 1. 

The epistle to the Galatians has four instances of γράφω, viz. 3: 10, 13. 
4: 22, 27; two with λέγει, 3: 16 where ϑεός is implied, and 4: 30 where 
ἢ γραφή is expressed. Besides these, it has two without any formula, 
viz. 3:11, 12; and one with ἐν τῷ. 

The epistle to the Ephesians has one quotation with λέγει, 4: 8; one 
with ἥτις ἐστίν ἐντολὴ πρώτη, 6: 2; and one without any formula, 5: 31. 
The reference in 5: 14, also exhibits λέχει. 

The first epistle to Timothy has one quotation only, which is intro- 
duced with λέγει 7 γραφή, 5:18; and the second to Timothy has a quota- 
tion without any formula, 2: 19. 

In all the other epistles of Paul, viz. those to the Philippians, Colos- 
sians, Thessalonians, and to ‘Titus and Philemon, there are no certain and 
direct quotations at all. 

Suppose now that we take the epistle to the Romans, (one of the most 
undoubted of all Paul’s epistles), as the model of this writer’s quotations. 
Then the argument is conclusive, (on the ground which Schulz and 
Seyfiarth have taken), against the genuineness of all his other acknowl- 


188 § 27. oBsECTIONS BY SCHULZ. 


edged epistles, unless it be the second to the Corinthians, and that to the 
Galatians. Above all, what shall we say of all those epistles which 
never quote the Old Testament at all? Can it be that the same man 
wrote these, who has directly appealed no less than forty eight times to 
the Old Testament, in the epistle to the Romans; not to mention many 
other implicit references? And can it be, that when his formulas of 
reference are so diverse, as they are between this epistle and the first to 
the Corinthians, that the same person was the author of both ? It is easy 
now to perceive, that if arguments can be built on such circumstances as 
these, then the genuineness of the greater portion of the Pauline epistles 
must of course be denied. Is Dr. Schulz or Prof. Bleek prepared for 
such a conclusion ? 

(6) I now venture to observe, that there are even striking resemblances 
between some peculiar modes of quotation in Paul’s acknowledged epis- 
tles, and some of those in the epistle to the Hebrews. KE. g. Rom. 13:9 
τὸ yoo and ἐν τῷ, Gal. 5:14 ἐν τῷ ; with which comp. Heb. 12:27 τὸ δε, 
and in 3:15 ἐν τῷ λέγεσϑαι. In Rom. 4: 18 we find the perfect partici- 
ple used, κατὰ τὸ εἰρημένον ; in Heb, 12:20, τὸ διαστελλόμενον. In Rom. 
9:12 we have the first Aorist pass. 2667/97" in Heb. 11:18, its equivalent 
ἐλαλήϑη. In Rom. 9: 25 we have ἐν τῷ “Ὡσηὲ λέγει, sc. ὃ ϑεός ; in Rom. 
11: 2, ἐν ᾿Ηλίᾳ λέγει ἢ γραφή" comp. Heb. 4: 7, ἐν Ζαβὶδ λέγων; a pecu- 
liarity of quotation which is very striking and remarkable. 

When Bleek asserts, that Paul often cites the words of a sacred writer 
as being such, but that the author of our epistle never does this (p. 377), 
could he have maturely weighed the nature of the quotations in Heb. 
2:6. 9:20, and 12: 21, where the first is plainly ascribed to David, who 
is understood by τίς, and the other two directly name Moses? I am 
aware of his assertion, that ‘these two last cases merely refer to what 
Moses said as a person, and not as an author.’ But are not the words 
cited, exhibited as matter of record in the books of Moses, being there 
found either verbatim or ad sensum2 And if so, how does the nature of 
these quotations differ from those in the epistle to the Romans, where 
the words of authors as such are introduced? But granting that it does 
differ, even then our epistle will not differ more from Paul, than Paul 
does from himself; for in the epistle to the Romans only has Paul quoted 
the words of authors as such; 6. g. Rom. 4: 6. 11:9. 10:5, 12, 15, 16, 
19, 20. 9: 29, 27. Are the epistles to the Corinthians spurious, because 
they exhibit no such mode of quotation ? 

A word as to the greater frequency of quotations, in the epistle to the He- 
brews. Let us compare it with that to the Romans, which it most of all re- 
sembles in respect to discussion and method of argument. In the epistle 
to the Romans, there are at least forty eight quotations; in that to the 
Hebrews, thirty four. More may be made in each, if we reckon all the 
cases of phraseology or resemblances to the Old Testament in the turn 
of thought, which may be found in both. Now the proportion of the 
epistle to the Romans to that of the Hebrews, in regard to length, is as 
fourteen to ten; the number of quotations as forty eight to thirty four ; 
which would average nearly three and a half to a page, in each epistle ; 
the proportion being nearly the same in both, but the excess, on the side 


§ 27. OBJECTIONS BY SCHULZ. 189 


οἵ the epistle to the Romans. So much for the assertion, that the fre- 
quency of quotation in our epistle proves that Paul was not the author of it. 
If there be any weight in such an argument, it lies equally against the 
genuineness of the epistle to the Romans, compared with Paul’s other 
epistles which have no quotations at all. 

(¢) While I am discussing the subject under consideration, I must also 
notice some new views and positions of Bleek. He endeavours to shew 
(pp. 338—881), that ‘ Paul in his epistles, although he usually follows the 
Septuagint in his citations, yet sometimes translates de novo, and at other 
times corrects the version by the use of the Hebrew; on the contrary, 
the author of the epistle to the Hebrews follows the Septuagint through- 
out, even where it gives a sense wholly diverse from that of the Hebrew ; 
and consequently, this author had no acquaintance with the Hebrew, which 
can not be affirmed of Paul. In no instance, does Paul employ the 
Septuagint, where the sense is diverse in any considerable respect from 
that of the Hebrew.’ 

To the subject of quotations, Bleek, as will appear by the reference 
above, has devoted more than forty pages of his work. I shall not at- 
tempt to follow him with minuteness, in all his details. I have read the 
whole more than once, with great care, and have expended perhaps 
more time than the author himself, in the examination of this subject. 
The result of all I can express in the words of Schulz; who, in his Re- 
view of Bleek’s work (Allgem. Lit. Zeitung. June 1829) , says respecting 
the essay in question of Bleek, “We have not been able, indeed, to con- 
vince ourselves of the correctness of the author’s argumentation. It ap- 
pears to go too far; and, like every demonstration that proves too much, 
to prove nothing.” 

The substantial part of Bleek’s allegations, however, must be put to 
the test of fact. 

(1) Is it true, then, that Paul no where follows the Septuagint where it 
differs from the Hebrew? Οὐ that he corrects this translation, when he 
cites it, in case it does differ from the Hebrew? Bleek p. 351. 

I shall content myself, for the sake of brevity, with referring the reader 
to such passages as will enable him fully to make up his mind, as to the 
answer which one should give to these questions. Let him compare, 
then, Rom. 2: 24 with Is. 52:5, Sept. and Hebrew, where the apostle 
holds with the Sept. in respect to the addition of dv’ ὑμᾶς and ἐν τοῖς 
ἔϑγνεσι.---- τη. 3: 4, comp. Sept. Ps. δ0 : 4, Heb. Ps. 51:6; where the 
Heb. 727m , thou shalt be pure, upright, is νικήσῃς in Paul and the Sep- 
tuagint. = Rom. 3: 10, comp. Sept. Ps. 13:1, Heb. Ps. 14:1. The latter 
has nothing that corresponds to the οὐδὲ εἷς of Paul, which comes plainly 
from the Sept. οὐκ ἔστιν ἕως £vd¢.—Rom. 4 : 8, comp. Gen. 15:6 Sept. and 
Heb. ; where the apostle uses ἐλογίσϑη (passive voice) taken from the 
Sept., while the Heb. has the active verb H3WN4 , and he [Jehovah] im- 
puted it—Rom. 9: 27, 28, comp. Is. 10: 22, 23, Sept. and Heb.; where 
(in v. 28) the Heb. runs thus, “ For destrisetion and that which is decreed, 
i. e. decreed destruction, the Lord Jehovah of hosts will execute, in the wnikdat 
of the whole land ; Sept. and Paul, λόγον x. τ. ., with only a very slight 
and entirely unimportant variation in Paul at the close, viz. ἐπὺ τῆς γῆς 


190 § 27. oBJECTIONS BY SCHULZ. 


instead of the Sept. ἐν τῇ οἰκουμένῃ ody.—Rom. 10 : 16, comp. Is. 53: 1, 
Sept. and Heb., where the Heb. has no word corresponding to κύριε.---- 
Rom. 10: 20, 21, comp. Is. 65: 1, 2, Sept. and Heb.; where ἀγτιλέγοντα 
is added to the text, the Heb. having no corresponding word.—Rom. 11: 
9, 10, comp. Sept. Ps. 68: 22, 23, Heb. Ps. 68: 23, 24; where the Heb. in 
v. 24 runs thus, make their loins continually to shake, instead of καὶ toy 
γῶτον xt. Δ. Rom. 12: 20, comp. Prov. 25: 22 Heb. and Sept.; where 
the Heb. nh, to take, capere, imponere, is rendered σωρεύσεις, to heap up, 
in the Sent and by Paul.—Rom. 15: 12, comp. Is. 11: 10 Sept. and Heb.; 
where, for the Heb. 025 for a banner, the Sept. and Paul have ἄρχειν ; 
and where also for the ‘Heb. TWAT? they shall seek, the others have ἐλ- 
πιοῦσι.---1 Cor. 1:19, comp. Is. 29: 14 Sept. and Heb.; where, for the 
Heb. Smmon shall be hidden, Paul has ἀϑετήσω, equivalent to the Sept. 
χρύψω.--1 Cor. 6:16, comp. Gen. 2: 24 Sept. and Heb. ; where the Heb. 
has no word corresponding to the οὗ δύο of Paul Pinel the Septuagint. 
1 Cor. 15:55, comp. Hos. 13:14 Sept. and Heb.; where the Heb., 
I will be thy plague, O death! I will be thy destruction, O Hades ! 
Paul with some verbal differences from the Sept., follows the spirit of 
that version throughout, and most evidently had it in his mind, or before 
his eyes.—Gal. 3:18, comp. Deut. 21: 23 Sept. and Heb.; where ἐπὸ 
ξύλου has no corresponding word in Hebrew.—Eph. 5: 31, comp. Gen. 
2:24 Sept. and Heb. ; where οὗ δύο has no corresponding word in He- 
brew. 

It will be difficult, I believe, for an impartial reader who is conversant 
with criticism, to go through with these comparisons, without being per- 
suaded that the apostle has departed (with the Septuagint) from the tezt 
of the Hebrew. Bleek alleges, indeed, that none of these departures are 
material. In one sense this is true, viz. that the general sentiment will ac- 
cord, in one way or another, with what the apostle has cited them to es- 
tablish. But is not this true of all the citations in the epistle to the He- 
brews 3 as true as it δὰ of the examples above adduced? Let the reader 
compare again Rom. 9: 28 in Paul and the Sept. , with the original He- 
brew in Is. 10: 23; ae in like manner, Rom. 11: 9, 10 with Ps. 69 : 28, 
24, and 1 Cor. Iie 55 with Hos. 13: 14; and then he can answer for 
himself. 4 

Bleek himself concedes (p. 338), that ‘ Paul usually (in der Regel) cites 
the Old Testament according to the Seventy ; as was natural for him to do 
whenever it was present to his memory, because the churches and _ per- 
sons whom he addressed, were more familiar with this version than with 
the original.’ But the citations of the apostle, he further avers, ‘are all 
from memory, whether he cites from the Septuagint, or from the original 
Hebrew,’ p. 343. 

How this last point can be made out, it is difficult for me to conceive. 
Tt is true, there are a considerable number of quotations, in which the 
discrepancies with the Hebrew are of so circumstantial and unimportant a 
nature, and the order of the words sometimes such, as would very natur- 
ally proceed from memoriter quotations. But then, who can shew us that 
the apostle, in case he had the original before his eyes, would have held 
himself bound to copy it verbatim et literatim 2. A slavish copying of this 
nature, I take to be indicative of the superstitions of later ages, and not of 


§27. OBJECTIONS BY SCHULZ. 191 
the wisdom and knowledge of the primitive teachers of our religion, who 
knew that Scripture was the sense, and not the form merely, of any pas- 
sage. 

I cannot resist the impression, that a sober and intelligent critic, who 
has no case to make out, must from the thorough study of the quotations 
in the epistles of the New Testament, come to a deep conviction, that 
there was among the sacred writers almost an unlimited freedom in re- 
spect to the manner of quotation. 

(1) Paul, in his acknowledged epistles, very often quotes verbatim from 
the Septuagint, where this agrees as exactly with the Hebrew as any 
translation can be made to do.* 

(2) In other cases, the apostle cites passages with a merely minute 
and altogether unimportant variation both from the Septuagint and the He- 
brew, where these two (in all parts of any consequence as to the sense) 
are exactly, or almost exactly agreed.t 

(3) In some other cases there are slight differences between the He- 
brew and the Septuagint, and the citation of the apostle agrees exactly 
with neither, in regard to words, but the difference in respect to sense is 
altogether unimportant.t 

(4) There are other cases, where there is more or less freedom of de- 
parture from the original, some of which would seem almost like a new 
version, and others a mere paraphrastic imitation of the Hebrew ; while 
some of the cases might be ranged, without any serious difficulty, under 
some one of the preceding classes.§ 


* E. g. Rom. 3 :13 quoted from Ps. 5: 9 (10). 3:13 from Ps. 139: 3 (140: 4). 
4:7,8 from Ps. 32:1,2. 4:17 from Gen. 17:5. 4:18 from Gen. 15:5. 7:7 
from Ex. 20:17. 8: 36 from Ps. 43: 22 (44:22). 9:7 from Gen. 21:12. 9:12 
from Gen. 25:23. 9: 13 from Mal. 1: 9, 8. 9: 15 from Ex. 33:19. 10:5 from 
Ley. 18: 5, where the ὥ of the Septuagint is a manifest error of the scribes for 
6. 10:13 from Joel 2: 32 (3: 5). 10: 18 from Ps. 18: 4 (19:5). 15:3 from Ps. 
68: 9 (69:10). 15:10 from Deut. 32:43. 15:11 from Ps. 116: 1 (117:1). 15: 
21 from Is. 52:15. 1 Cor. 9:9 from Deut. 25: 4. 10: 7 from Ex. 32:6. 10: 26 
from Ps. 23: 1 (24:1). 15: 32 from Is.22:13. 2Cor.4:13 from Ps. 115: 10 
(116: 10). 6: 2 from Is. 49: 8. 9: 9 from Ps. 111: 9 (112: 9). Gal. 4: 27 from 
Is. 54:1. 5: 14 from Ley. 19: 18. 1 Tim. 5:18 from Deut. 25: 4. 


+ E. g. Rom. 3: 14 from Ps. 10: 7. 3: 15 from Is. 59: 7, 8. 3: 18 from Ps. 35: 
1 (36:2). Latter part of Rom. 10:11 from Is. 28: 16. 10:19 from Deut. 32: 
21. 15:9 from Ps. 17: 49 (18:50). 1 Cor. 10:20 from Deut. 32:17. 2 Cor. 
8:15 from Ex. 16:18. 13:1 from Deut. 19:15. Gal. 3:8 from Gen. 12:3. 9 
Tim. 2:19 from Num. 16: 5. 


{ E.g. Rom.1:17 from Hab. 2:4. 11:34 from Is. 40:13. 13: 9 from Ex. 
20: 13—17 (13, 14). Lev. 19: 18 (differing only in the order of some words). 
Eph. 6: 2, 3 from Ex. 20: 12. 


δ E. g. Rom. 9: 9, from Gen. 18:10. 9:17 from Ex. 9:16. 9: 25 from Hos. 
2:23. 9:29 from Is. 1: 9. 9: 33 (first part) from Is.8:14. 10:6 seq. from 
Deut. 30: 12 seq. 10: 15 from Is. 52: 7. 11: 3 from 3 (1) Kings 19:14. 11: 4 (1) 
Kings 19: 18. 11: 8 from Is. 29:10 and Deut. 29: 4. 11: 26, 27 from Is. 59: 20, 
21. 14:11 from Is. 45: 23. 1 Cor. 1: 31, from Jer. 9: 24 (23). 2: 9 from Is. 64: 4 
(3).2: 16 from Is. 40 : 13. 3: 20 from Ps. 93:11 (94: 11). 14: 21 from Is. 28: 11, 12. 
15 : 25 from Ps. 109: 1 (110: 1). 15: 27 from Ps. 8: 6 (7). 15: 45 from Gen. 2: 7. 


192 §27. OBJECTIONS BY SCHULZ. 


Rom. 12: 19 and 1 Cor. 3: 19, look much like a new translation from 
the Hebrew, differing entirely from the Septuagint. 

Now who can attempt to decide in so many cases of variations from the 
original Hebrew, or from the Septuagint, of all gradations—from the most 
minute verbal agreement up to a mere paraphrastic imitation—who can 
possibly decide which of them Paul took directly from the Septuagint, 
without reference to the Hebrew; which from the Hebrew, without ref- 
erence to the Septuagint ; which he made out from a comparison of both ; 
which he translated anew; which he copied merely as to sense, without 
intending to copy the diction ; which he wrote down from mere memory, 
and which from consulting the original? The thing is plainly impossi- 
ble ; and the assumption of Bleek, that the apostle now copied in this 
way, and then in that; that he now made out his citation from a predom- 
inant recollection of the Hebrew, and then of the Septuagint; is, and 
must be, destitute of any certainty at all. I agree altogether with Schuiz 
(Review of Bleek, June 1829), that “in the very examples produced by 
him, who ever will make the comparison, in a manner unprejudiced and 
without partiality, cannot but concede that the object is rather sought af- 
ter by art and acuteness in the display of evidence, than found or accom- 
lished.” 

One question still remains. Are the citations in the epistle to the He- 
brews, like to those in Paul’s epistles, with respect to the characteristics 
that have now been exhibited ? 

In the main they are ; although on the whole the coincidence with the 
Septuagint is more exact, than in the acknowledged epistles of Paul. But 
this I must regard as accidental, not as designed. In the greater part of 
the quotations, as Bleek himself acknowledges, the Septuagint is so near 
to the Hebrew original, that there was no occasion to depart from it. 

(1) There are many exact coincidences between the Septuagint and 
Hebrew and the quotations in our epistle, in almost every minute word.* 

(2) In a considerable number of cases, there is nearly an exact coinci- 
dence with the Sept. and Hebrew, yet with some slight verbal differences.+ 

(3) There is a number of cases, in which there is a little discrepancy 
in diction from the Sept., where it agrees with the Hebrew.t 


15 : 54 from Is. 25: 8.2 Cor. 6:16 from Lev. 26:11, 12. 6:17,18 from Is. 52: 
11,12 and perhaps an imitation of 2 Kings (2. Sam.) 7:14. Gal. 3: 10 from 
Deut. 27: 26. 3: 11 from Hab. 2:4. 4:30 from Gen. 21:10. Eph. 4:8 from 
Ps. 67: 18. (68: 19.) 

* Heb.1:5 from Ps. 2: 7 and 2 Sam. 7:14. 1:10 seq. from Ps. 101: 25 seq. 
(102 : 26 seq). 1 : 12 from Ps. 109: 1 (110: 1). 2: 6seq. from Ps.8: 4 seq. (8:5 seq). 
2:12 from Ps. al: 22 (22: 23). 2:13 from Is. 8: 17, 18. 3: 7 seq. from Ps. 94:7 
seq. (95: 7 seq). 3: 15 from Ps. 94: a; 8 (95: 7, 4:3 from Ps. 94: 11 (95 : i 
a 7 from Ps. 94: 7, 8 (95: 7,8).5 5 from Ps.2:7. 5:6 from Ps. 109: 4 (110 : 4). 

:17, 21 from Ps. 109: 4 (110: ΠΕ 18: 6 from Ps. “ar: 6 (118: 6). 


+ E. g. Heb. 1: 6 from Ps. 96: 7. 4: 4 from Gen. 2:3. 8:5 from Ex. 25: 40. 
8:8 seq. from Jer. 38: 31 seq. 9: 20 from Ex. 24: 8. ‘10: 16,17 from Jer. 38 : 33, 
34 (31 : 38, 34). 10: 37, 38 fon Hab. 2: 3, 4. 


{ E. g. Heb. 1: 7 from Ps. 103: 4 (104: 4). 1: 8, 9 from Ps. 44: 6,7 (45, 7,8). 
12: 26 fom Hag. 2:7 (6). 6: 14 from Gen. 22: 16, 17. 12: 20 from Ex. 19: 12, 13. 
12: 21 from Deut. 9:19. 


~ 


ᾧ 27. OBJECTIONS BY SCHULZ. 193 


(4) There is an accordance in several cases with the Sept. where it 
differs from the Hebrew.* 

(5) There is an accordance with the Hebrew, and entire discrepancy 
from the Sept., in Heb. 10: 30 from Deut. 32: 35. 

liow can any just inference, now, be drawn from such a state of facts 
as this, against the Pauline origin of our epistle ? Bleek himself seems to 
concede (p. 365), that the author of our epistle might retain the Sept. in 
all the cases in which he has quoted the Old Testament, with the excep- 
tion of two, which will be noticed more particularly in the sequel. In- 
deed, I can see nothing more in the state of the quotations in our epistle, 
than that it so happened, that the citations in general accorded well in 
the Hebrew and the Sept. ; a thing which might happen, or might not, in 
respect to any other epistle, and one which actually happens, for exam- 
ple, in regard to the second epistle to the Corinthians. Such accordance 
actually existing, there was no occasion, (so far as we can see), to make 
any change, in general, from the Sept. version. Yet after all, as the facts 
above shew, actual changes here are little if any less frequent, than in the 
other epistles of Paul. They are certainly more frequent, in proportion, 
than in the second epistle to the Corinthians. See Nos. 2, 3, 5, above. 

But Bleek, in order to shew that the author of our epistle implicitly 
follows the Sept. throughout, even where it differs in sense from the He- 
brew, appeals to Heb. 1: 7, where, he says, the writer has followed the 
Sept. contrary to the sense of the Hebrew, which is, “who maketh the 
winds his messengers, and flames of fire his servants.” But the sense 
which he thus gives to the Hebrew, is against the laws of Hebrew gram- 
mar, and against the design of the writer. In support of this, I must re- 
fer the reader to the commentary on the passage. 

He further adduces Heb. 2: 6—8 (quoted from Ps. 8: 5—7), as an in- 
stance in which there is a departure from the Hebrew, and an agreement 
with the Septuagint in respect to the words ἡλάττωσας αὐτὸν βοαχύ τι 
mag ἀγγέλους. The Hebrew, he alleges, runs thus, “Thou hast made 
him but little inferior to the angels ;’ which, he thinks, is counter to the 
sense of the Greek. But in this last supposition he is as much mistaken, 
as in regard to the sense of the passage in Heb. 1: 7. Tor proof of this, 1 
refer to the commentary in the sequel. 

Heb. 1: 6 is also adduced ; but here the writer confesses that it is du- 
bious whether the author of our epistle cited Ps. 97: 7, or Deut. 32: 42. 
The former, he concedes, might be understood so as to accord with the 
citation. 

Heb. 12: 5, 6 (Prov. 3: 11, 12) is also cited, to shew a departure from 
the Hebrew, and an agreement with the Seventy. . “ This,” says he, “ is 


* KH. g. 10:5 seq. from Ps. 39: 6 seq. (40:7 seq). 11:21 from Gen. 47: 31, 
(where, however, the discrepancy is occasioned merely by the vowel points un- 
der su%5, which the author of our epistle no doubt read with the Seventy, 
man, as it should be read ; so that this case does not properly belong here). 
12:6 from Prov. 3: 12, (where, however, our epistle has παιδεύει instead of 
the Sept. ἐλέγχει). 13: 5 from Deut. 31: 8 Sept., and from Deut. 31 : 8 and Josh. 
1:5 of the Hebrew, (where the form of the Sept. is altered from the third per- 
son of the verbs to the first.) 

20 


194 ᾧ 27. ΟΒΙΕΟΤΙΟΝΒ BY SCHULZ. 


exactly after the Septuagint.” But he has ae the fact, that tle 
Septuagint in Prov. 3:12 has ἐλέγχει, for which in Heb. 12: 6 the writer 
employs παιδεύει ; a circumstance indeed that is immaterial, but one 
quite as important as Bleck has not unfrequently employed, in his essay 
on the quotations in our epistle, as the basis of some important con- 
clusions. All the departure from the Hebrew in the above passage, con- 
sists in reading IND, scourgeth, afficteth, instead of our present Hebrew 
punctuation IND, as a. father. But surely this writer, who alleges such a 
discrepancy as ‘this, does not need to be told that the present “Masoretic 
punctuation is the offspring of the fifth or sixth century of the Christian 
era; and that the author of our epistle, who read Hebrew without vowel 
points, read it as the Seventy did, and (as Bleek himself acknowledges) 
‘perbaps in a way preferable to the Masoretic punctuation.’ 

There remains, then, after all the allegations respecting close adherence 
to the Septuagint at the expense of the Hebrew, only one solitary pas- 
sage, where the departure is in any measure of consequence. This is 
Heb. 10: 5, 7, quoted from Ps. 39:6 seq. (40:7 seq). Here Bleek al- 
leges, that the passage is not quoted from memory; that the departure 
from the Hebrew is entire ; and that this offers full evidence, that the au- 
thor of our epistle could not have understood the original Hebrew, so as 
to be able to compare it, p. 866 seq. But, 

(1) The passage is not exactly quoted from the Septuagint ; for ἢ ἤτησας 
(Cod. Alex. ἐζήτησας) is here εὐδόκησας. (2) Tot ποιῆσαι, ὃ ϑεὸς, τὸ 
ϑέλημά gov is, in the Septuagint, τοῦ ποιῆσαι τὸ ϑέλημά σου, ὃ ϑεὸς μου, 

ἡβουλήϑην, x. τ. λ.; 50 that the order and the connection both, of this last 
clause, are changed by the author of our epistle. Bleek, who makes so 
much of such minutiae, surely will not object to my making mention of 
them. 

But the main point is the citing of σῶμα δὲ κατηρτίσω μοι from the 
Septuagint, instead of using the Hebrew 75 ND DIN, ears hast thou 
opened for me; which, Bleek avers, cannot possibly mean "what the Sep- 
tuagint, and after nine the author of our epistle, have translated it as 
meaning. 

Literally and exactly as to diction, the Hebrew certainly does not 
mean σῶμα δὲ πατηρτίσω μοι. But ad sensum, will not both passages 
come to the same amount, in the argument of the apostle? Mine ears 
hast thou opened means, ‘Thou hast made me obedient, listening” In 
what respect? The preceding context intimates. ‘Sacrifice and offer- 
ing thou hast not desired.’ What then is to come in the place of these ? 
“Mine ears hast thou cpened,” namely, thon hast made me “ obedient,” 
i, e. “unto death” (Phil. 2: 8), instead of requiring these. The sequel 
confirms this. “ Burnt-offering and sin-offering thou hast not required. 
Then I said, Lo! I come....to do thy will, my God.” What is this 
will? That the body of Christ should be made an offering; see Heb. 
10:10. What important difference, then, is there as to sense, between 
saying in this case, “’Thou hast made me obedient,” viz. unto death, and 
“'Thou hast provided me with a body,” viz. for sacrifice ? 

Bleek may call in question the commentary of the writer of our epistle 
on the whole passage extracted, and probably would do so; but then it 


§ 27. ΟΒΟΒΟΥΙΟΝΒ BY SCHULZ. 195 


would be a question between him and the writer of our epistle ; and he 
will not take it amiss, in a matter of this kind, if some should prefer the 
writer’s authority. 

It seems not to be correct, then, that the whole stress of the passage in 
Heb. 10: 5 seq., lies on the σῶμα δὲ κατηρτίσω wor. Heb. 10: 10 shews 
this not to be the case. It is “ doing the will of God,” viz. being obedi- 
ent unto death, which affords the substitute for the offerings of the Levit- 
ical law; and this is the very gist of the question that is agitated in this 
passage. See Comm. and Excursus on Heb. 10: 5. 

Thus much for the solitary instance of departure from the Hebrew, on 
which so great stress is laid. Let us now reverse the matter, and see 
how the account stands on the other side. 

Heb. 10: 30, ἐμοὲ ἐκδίκησις ἐγὼ ἀνταποδώσω, Hebrew Ὁ ΣΟῚ mp2 %, 
Dent, 32: 35. But here the Septuagint renders, ἐν ἡμέρα ἐκδικήσεως ἀντὰ- 
ποδώσω. Bleek himself (ρ. 355),in commenting on this very passage (as 
exhibited in Rom, 12: 19), avers that here ‘ Paul plainly had the Hebrew 
before his eyes.’ This I should admit ; but then, what had the author of 
our epistle before his eyes? Bleek answers (p. 367), “here, without any 
doubt, the author of our epistle transferred this from Rom. 12: 19, where 
the same words are employed.” Bui on this solution Schulz has re- 
marked (Review of Bleek p. 194), that “ the author escapes with the unsat- 
isfactory assertion, that the writer of the epistle to tue Hebrews has literal- 
ly copied Paul ;” an assertion which it would of course be impossible to 
substantiate, if Paul himself be net the author of our epistle. 

We have, then, one case in which the writer of our epistle has followed 
the Seventy, where the discrepance from the Hebrew, as to diction, seems 
to be striking ; and one where he has followed the Hebrew, with a dis- 
crepance from the Septuagint that is striking. Can any conclusions for 
the opinion of Bleek, be drawn from such facts as these ? 

But Schulz, although he differs so much from Bleek in his estimation 
of the evidence to be drawn from quotations, still holds, with him, that it 
is altogether probable the writer of our epistle had no knowledge of the 
_ Hebrew language. How such a position can be rendered probable, I do 
not see. Bleek holds Apollos to be the author of the epistle to the He- 
brews. Was this disciple, then, who was mighty in the Scriptures, and 
in all probability a Jew, ignorant of Hebrew? Did not all well edu- 
cated Jews of his time understand Hebrew? Above all; did not the au- 
thor of our epistle, so profoundly and intimately versed in every thing 
Jewish, understand Hebrew? [If the thing is possible, it is utterly im- 
probable. At all events, it can no more be proved from the quotations in 
our epistle, that the author did not understand Hebrew, than it can by 
the quotations in Matthew’s gospel which accord so well with the Sept., 
that he did not understand the original language of the Jewish Scriptures. 

But Bleek has advanced another position peculiar to himself, and one, 
I apprehend, not very likely to satisfy his critical readers. ‘This is, that 
‘the writer of our epistle follows the Alexandrine text of the Septuagint, 
while Paul follows that of the Vatican manuscript.’ 

Schulz has replied to this, in his Review ; and I employ his words, in 
part, as a sufficient answer. “The differences in the readings, for the 


190 § 27. OBJECTIONS BY SCHULZ. 


most part, have respect to mere minutiae. ‘The number of passages, 
where the readings in Paul differ from the Vatican Codex, and agree 
reore with the Alexandrine; and on the other hand, in the epistle to the 
Hebrews, where they agree more with the Vatican than the Alexandrine ; 
is not much smaller than where the reverse of this is the case. A few 
exceptions, moreover, prove in this case as much as many, and suffice to 
destroy the credit of the writer’s [Bleek’s] views. In some citations, the 
apostle agrees neither with the Vatican nor with the Alexandrine.” 

Schulz then proceeds to observe, that the probability that the text of the 
Septuagint, at the time when our epistle was written, was in the different 
states now represented by the Vatican and Alexandrine manuscripts, can- 
not be made out; and that minute changes, of the nature here in ques- 
tion, are every where found in the New Testament. He then produces 
a number of cases, in which he shews that Bleek has given an imperfect 

_view of the state of the discrepancies in question; and he goes on to ask, 

“Where are the passages, in which Paul and the writer of our epistle 
cite the same texts, in which the first follows the Vatican Codex, and the 
second, the Alexandrine ? Not one has Bleek been able to produce ;” 
and then concludes by saying, “ Among the readings in which Paul dif- 
fers from the Vatican text, are some which are far more decisive than 
those which Bleek has brought, in order to prove his agreement with this 
text; 6. δ. Rom. 9: 25, meee ἐχεῖ is omitted ; 9: 27, where αὐτῶν and 
yao are omitted; and Riou, 14:11, where the Vatican has ὀμεῖται. ... 
τὸν ϑεόν, but Paul ἐξομολογήσεται... . τῷ Iem, as has also the Alexandrine 
Codex.” 

One is almost tempted to think, that the love of paradox, or a feeling 
that every thing must be pressed into the service of the cause which we 
are engaged to make out, must have operated to lead a writer to produce, 
and insist on, and rely upon such arguments as I have now examined. 
The reader will doubtless be wearied with the protracted length of the 
discussion, and with the subject itself. But he will call to mind, as an 
apology for me, that when such arguments are adduced as unanswerable 
proofs of discrepancy between our epistle and those of Paul; and produced 
by men of so much learning, moderation, and general impartiality as 
Bleek, they require an answer, for otherwise they will be misused. 

On the whole, then, the objection, drawn either from the method or 
the frequency of quotation, (singularis ratio prae ceteris omnibus of our 
epistle, as Seyffarth calls it), vanishes away upon close examination ; or if 
adhered to, must disprove the genuineness of a major part of the ac- 
knowledged epistles of Paul. That Paul, in our epistle, should have 
more frequently than elsewhere used λέχει, εἰπεν, stonxe, is altogether con- 
sonant with what we may suppose him-to have done, when addressing 
the Hebrews. The usual and almost the only mode of quoting, preva- 
lent among the Jews, in ancient times, appears to have been such ; at least 
if we may judge of it as it appears in the Mishna, where 47283, TaNEy , 
it is said, as it is said, which is said, is almost ‘te only formula in use. 
There is an obvious reason for this. Every Jew, being conversant with 
the Old Testament Scriptures, would of course know what was.the kind 
and weight of the appeal, made by λέγει, sims, (A72Nz); i. 6. he would at 


§ 27. oBsECTIONS BY SCHULZ 197 


once refer it to divine testimony. Hence this abridged and ares mode 
of quotation prevails, in our epistle. But in writing to churches made up 
of both Jews and Gentiles, the latter of whom were of course less familiar 
with the Old Testament, and knew less where to look for passages quot- 
ed, it was more natural for the apostle, (as he has done in the epistle to 
the Romans), to say Mavone λέγει, Εσαΐας λέγει, etc., so that the reference 
might be more definite. This is a sufficient reason to account for any 
differences in the formula of quotation, between our epistle and the other 
epistles of Paul. The difference itself has, however, as we have seen, 
been greatly overrated. Nothing important, most plainly, can be made 
of it by higher criticism, in performing its office upon our epistle, What 
can be more improbable, too, than that such a master-spirit as Paul should 
cast all his letters in the same mould ; always use the same round of ex- 
pression; mechanically apply the same formulas of quotation ; and for- 
ever repeat the same sentiments in the same language ? And because he 
has not done so in the epistle to the Hebrews, must it be wrested from 
him by eriticism which exacts such uniformity in a writer? Where is 
the writer of epistles ancient or modern, who possessed any talents and 
free command of language, whose letters can be judged of by such a erit- 
ical test as this ? 

(19) ‘The appellations given to the Saviour, in Paul’s acknowledged 
epistles and in the epistle to the Hebrews, are so diverse, as to afford strong 
evidence that both did not originate from the same person. E. g. in the 
Pauline epistles, these appellations are either, ὃ κύριος ἡμῶν. ᾿Ιησοῦς Χρισ- 
τός, ᾿Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς ὃ κύριος ἡμῶν, X. Ἰησοῦς ὃ κύριος ἡμῶν, OY ὃ κύριος 
᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστός. In innumerable passages is Christ referred to by these 
appellations ; which are so characteristic of Paul’s writings, that they are 
to be regarded as nearly the constant established formulas, by which he 
adverts to the Saviour. On the contrary, in the epistle to the Hebrews, 
the writer uses most commonly υἱὸς τοῦ ϑεοῦ or ὃ viog; he also employs, 
at times, 6 κύριος or ὃ Ἰησοῦς simply. Twice only has he connected 
᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστός. This must appear striking to every unprejudiced per- 
son, and of importance, p. 139 seq.’ 

Striking, indeed, the argument may appear, in the form stated by 
Schulz; but an investigation, through the medium of a Concordance, will 
present a very different result from that which he has presented. 

(a) In regard to υἱὸς τοῦ ϑεοῦ or ὃ υἱός being the most frequent appel- 
lation given to Christ by the writer of our epistle, the facts stand thus. 
Omitting dubious references, and all the names of Christ that are appella- 
tives suggested merely by the occasion, (such as ἀπόστολος, ἀρχιερεύς, 
ἀρχηγὸς σωτηρίας---τῆς πίστεως, μεσίτης, σωτήρ ὃ and κληρονόμος), the writer 
refers to the Messiah, by some one of his usual titles, in 32 places; in 
four only of which he calls him υἱὸς τοῦ ϑεοῦ, viz. Heb. 4:14. 6: 6. 7:3. 
10: 29. In 8 other places he calls him υἱός, viz. 1: 1, 5 bis, 8. 3:6. 5: 
5, 8. 7:28. In the Pauline epistles, these designations are used 17 times, 
vine Roms): 3, ΘΓ. 8: 3; 29, ΘΟ ΠΟΥ 1: 9. 15:28. Ὁ ΘΟΕ Ἢ: 
19. Gal. 1: 16. 2: 20.4: 4,6. Eph. 4:13. Col. 1: 13. 1 Thess. 1: 10. 

(6) Κύριος is so far from being limited to the epistle to the Hebrews, in 
its application to Christ, that, if I have counted rightly, it is found in the 


195 § 26. ΟΠΟΒΟΤΙΟΝΒ BY SCIIULZ. 


acknowledged Pauline epistles, applied in the same way, 147 times, and is 
the most frequent appellation of any except Χριστός. The cases where 
κύριος stands united with ’ Inoove, Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, ete., are exempted from 
this enumeration. On the other hand, the writer of our epistle is so far 
from making a frequent use of this designation, that he has employed it 
singly in two places only, or at most three, viz. 2:3. 7:14, probably 
12: 14, 

That Schulz should make a representation so singularly incorrect re- 
specting the appellation κύριος, can be accounted for in no other way, 
than by supposing that he never examined his Concordance for the sake 
of investigating the question respecting the use of i it. 

But farthier : ; in the epistle to the Romans, κύριος is applied to eke ist 
not more than 17 times; some may think, still less, in as much as the 
exegesis, in a few of the cases, may be doubtful. In the first epistle to 
the Corinthians, however, (which is about the same length), the same ap- 
pellation is given to Christ 45 times ; while, in the epistle to Titus it does 
not occur at all, Further, ᾿Πησοὺῦς Χριστός, or Χριστὸς ᾿Ιησοῦς, is used in 
the epistle to the Romans, as connected with κύριος only 14 times; in 1 
Corinthians, only 11. “Zyoote¢ κύριος is used in Romans twice: in 1 Co- 
rinthians, thrice. Κύριος Χριστὸς only in Rom. 16:18. Such a variety 
of usage in these different epistles, must, if Schulz’s method of arguing is 
correct, prove that Paul could not have written them all. 

(c) ᾿Τησοῦς, without being connected with the other usual appellations of 
Christ, is employed in our epistle 7 times; viz. 2:9. 6:20. 7:22. 10: 
19. 12: 2, 24. 13:12. In the Pauline epistles, 16 times, viz. Rom. 3 : 26. 
8:11. 1 Cor. 12:3. 2 Cor. 4: 5, 4: 10/bis. 4: 11 bis. 4142 1s 
Eph. 4: 21. Phil. 2:10. 1 Thess. 1:10. 2:15. 4:14 bis. In the epis- 
tles to the Gal., Col., 2 Thess., 1 Tim., 2 Tim., Tit., and Philemon, it 
is not found at all. 

(d) Χριστός is used in like manner by cur author 6 times; viz. 2: 6, 14. 
9:5. 6:1. 9:11, 14, 24, 28. 11:26; in the Pauline epistles, 198 if I 
have rightly counted. 

(e) ᾿Πησοῦς Χριστός instead of being used only twice, as Schulz avers, is 
used three times; Heb. 10: 10. 13: 8, 21, omitting 3: 1, where it stands 
also in the textus receptus. 

(/) In 13: 20, Κύριον I. Χριστόν is used by the writer, just as Paul 
employs it. 

(5) Those designations of Christ in the Pauline epistles, which Schulz 
has mentioned as the usual and only appellations of him by Paul, do not 
collectively amount to more than 68, if we take the number as stated by 
himself, (who, however, as is usual with him, has in haste overlooked 
some instances) ; while in the same epistles, other appellations which he 
does not acknowledge, are used with far greater frequency ; 6. g. κύριος 
is used 147 times, and Χριστός, 198, the former being an appellation 
which this writer holds out as characteristic of our epistle to the Hebrews, 
and neglected by Paul. Truly this matter is striking, (if I may use Dr. 
Schulz’s own language); and if the epistle to the Hebrews can ‘be wrest- 
ed from Paul, only by arguments such as this, those who ascribe it to this 


§27. OBJECTIONS BY SCHULZ. 199 


apostle have not much reason for apprehension in regard to the safety of 
their cause. 

Even if the facts stated by Schulz were correct, it would not follow 
that Paul could not be the author of our epistle. The predominant appel- 
lation of the Saviour in the Pauline epistles is simply Χριστός ; as we 
have just seen. Yet in the second epistle to the Thessalonians, this ap- 
pellation, simply used, occurs but once (3:5); and in both the epistles to 
Timothy, and in that to Titus, it does not once occur. Does it follow 
from this, then, that Paul did not write these epistles? If not, then, sup- 
posing the facts alleged by Schulz to be correct, no critical argument 
could be safely built upon them. But they are so far from being cor- 
rect, that one finds it difficult to account for it, how any man, who ex- 
pected others to examine for themselves and not to receive what he says 
as authoritative, should have thrown out before the public such affirma- 
tions as every tyro, with a Greek Concordance in his hand, would be able 
to disprove. Truly Prof. Schulz must not blame his readers, if they are 
slow and cautious about admitting his allegations, on subjects where ac- 
curacy and diligence and patience are necessary, in order to produce cor- 
rect results. 

Seyffarth has brought forward the same argument, but with a some- 
what different statement of facts; yet full of inaccuracies and errors. 
He concludes, as the sum of the whole, “that the writer of the epistle to 
the Hebrews has given to the Saviour appellations, which are indicative 
of less reverence than those which Paul bestows upon him,” and that 
“there is a great difference between the usage of Paul, in this respect, 
and that of our epistle, p. 90.” 

On the whole, however, nothing can be plainer, than that the usage in 
our epistle, with respect to the appellations in question, differs no more 
from the common Pauline one, than the usage of several of his acknowl- 
edged epistles differs from that of others belonging to him. Consequent- 
ly no weight can be attached to this objection. 

(20) ‘The writer of our epistle has made use of a great many words 
and phrases, in order to express ideas which Paul expresses (either al- 
ways or usually) by different words or phrases, p. 138 seq.’ 

This objection is drawn out at great length, and requires a minuteness 
of consideration and philological exhibition which is truly appalling. 
But having commenced the work, it must not be left unfinished. ‘The 
importance of the subject under discussion, is the apology on which I 
must rely for justification, as to the length and minuteness of the exam- 
ination. General assertions may satisfy those who think in generals and 
reason in generals ; but the true critic demands facts, and of course detail, 
in an investigation dependent on facts. 

It will shorten our work, however, and be of no small importance with 
respect to the satisfaction which the reader’s mind should experience, if 
some acknowledged, or at least just, principles of reasoning in regard to 
such a topic, can be premised before we enter upou particulars. 

The following principles seem to be such as will be assented to, by all 
sober and judicious critics; at least we may hope this will be the case. 


209 § 26. opsECTIONS BY SCHULZ. 


In particular, all who have not a special end to accomplish by the deniai 
of them, we may presume will assent to them. 

(a) The same writer, if a man of knowledge and talents, (both of which 
will be conceded to Paul), does not, in an extensive correspondence eith- 
er on matters of business or sentiment, always erpress the same ideas by 
the same words or phrases ; much less, always repeat the same ideas, what- 
ever may be the nature of the subject which the occasion demands, 1 
appeal to all the volumes of letters extant, in proof of this. 

(b) The same writer, at different periods of life, in different circum- 
stances and states of mind and feeling, exhibits a variety of style in his 
epistles ; especially where the subjects themselves are very diverse. 'The 
appeal in proof of this, I make to well known facts, and to every one’s 
own experience, who has been long accustomed to write letters on a va- 
riety of grave and important topics. In particular will the case be as 
now represented, if a writer’s lot, at one period of his life, be cast among 
men and authors, who differ in style and modes of thinking and expres- 
sion, from those with whom he has at another time been associated. 

(c) It follows, then, that differences in the choice of expression, in two 
epistles, in order to convey the same idea, (above all when this stands in 
connection with diverse subjects), is no good proof that the same person 
did not, or could not, write both. Indeed, no man who is not a writer of 
the most sterile genius, and of a mind the most mechanical, nay, ab- 
solutely insusceptible of excitement or of improvement, will always limit 
himself to the same round of expression. While there will be occasional 
words and expressions, which will mark some characteristics appropriate 
to a writer of knowledge and talents, yet in the great body of them, there 
will not be a mechanical sameness either of thought or of expression ; but 
every letter will take its colouring, more or less, from the occasion and 
the state of mind which prompted it. 

(4) If any person refuses to accede to principles so plain and reasona- 
ble as these, it would be easy to shew him, (as will be seen hereafter), 
that any one of Paul’s acknowledged epistles may be proved to be spuri- 
ous, on a different ground, just as easily as the epistle to the Hebrews. 
Schulz and Seyffarth have undertaken to prove that Paul did not write 
the epistle to the Hebrews, because it contains many words either not 
employed by Paul, or not employed by him in the same sense; and also 
some favourite expressions, not found in his acknowledged epistles. At 
first view, the number of such words or expressions, as exbibited by them, 
seems very great ; nay, quite appalling before examination. Most critics 
of the present day seem to have been influenced principally by this con- 
sideration, in giving up the Pauline origin of our epistle. But a widely 
extended examination of this subject, has ended in producing different 
impressions upon my own mind. I am fully persuaded, now, that there 
is scarcely any one of Paul’s acknowledged epistles, which cannot be prov- 
ed to be spurious, if the grounds of argument assumed by the above 
named writers is tenable. I will pledge myself, (1 do not say it at a ven- 
ture), to produce as many peculiarities, as many ἅπαξ λεγόμενα or ἅπαξ 
hoy foueve, for example, in the epistle to the Romans, in the first to the 
Corinthians, or in the second to the Corinthians, (in proportion to the 


. 


§ 27. oBJECTIONS BY SCHULZ. 291 


length of these epistles, and compared with the other acknowledged epis- 
tles of Paul), as there are in the epistle to the Hebrews. If this can be 
done, then is the argument equally good against either of these epistles, 
which are among the most undoubted of all the writings of Paul. The 
proof of this I shall by and by produce, in laying before the reader the 
result of the principles which I have ventured to call in question, by ap- 
plying them to the first epistle of Paul to the Corinthians. 

(e) Schulz himself, who has laboured with so much zeal and confidence 
to fix upon our epistle the charge of peculiarities in style, expression, and 
favourite phrases, has, in another part of his work, and before his mind 
became heated with this subject, made the following remarks, which are 
well worthy of attention. 

“We give up words, and phrases, and thoughts [in the epistle to the 
Hebrews], which occur but seldom in the books of the New Testament 
or in Paul’s epistles. We shall not insist upon the ἅπαξ λεγόμενα or the 
ana’ λογιζόμενα ; for why must a writer of numerous works necessarily 
repeat oftentimes his ideas in general, or his favourite phrases? Why 
must he often do this in all his works, and not use some of them merely 
in particular passages ? Every writer will do the latter, and must do it, 
when, either by accident or by design, he falls only once upon some par- 
ticular idea. But in regard to a writer whose whole works we do not 
possess, (perhaps only a small part of them), how can we pronounce sen- 
tence upon many phrases and thoughts, or deduce any argument at all 
from them? And such is the case before us. What now appears in the 
letters of Paul still extant to be ἅπαξ εἰρημένον, he may have said and 
written numberless times in works now lost, p. 52.” 

He then proceeds very justly to ask, ‘ whether it is the design of any 
New Testament writer, in any one particular book, to represent the 
whole scheme of Christian doctrine, complete in all its parts? And if 
not, whether that which in one book differs from the contents of another, is 
to be considered as departure or contradiction in respect to that other 8’ 
And then he adds, “It is quite surprising, and deserving of reprobation, 
that any one should call in question expressions against which no objec- 
tions can be made, when they are consonant with the usus loquendi, and 
are genuine Greek; and also, that any one should produce them as 
grounds of suspicion against a book, because they do not occur in other 
compositions of a similar nature. In the epistle to the Hebrews, there 
are many of this kind, p. 53.” 

These remarks are no less just than striking. I freely give to them my 
entire and hearty approbation; and I am willing, with such principles in 
view, to join issue with the author, as to his list of words and phrases 
which he brings forward, in his attack upon our epistle. Nine parts in 
ten of all that he has advanced of this nature, would be excluded from 
the argument by his own sentence. 

To reduce the view which I must now give of the words and phrases 
adduced by Schulz, to as short a compass as will be consistent with my 
design, I shall first remark on those words which require to be separate- 
ly discussed ; and then I shall class together those to which some gener- 

26 


202 § 27. OBJECTIONS BY SCHULZ. 


al ΡΝ will apply in common. I follow mostly the order of Schulz, 
step by step, merely because this is more convenient for those, who may 
wish to compare what is here written with the remarks of this author. 


I. Words and phrases, instead of which Paul employs other and different ones. 


(1) “Εὐλάβεια, Heb. 5: 7. 12: 28, is used in the sense of piety, devoted- 
ness to God ; it is equivalent to εὐσέβεια as employed by Paul, 1 Tim. 2: 
2. 3:16, etc. Neither of the writers employs the word used by the oth- 
er, p. 141.’ 

The sense of εὐλάβεια, in Heb. 5: 7, it is altogether probable, is fear, 
which is the classical sense of the word; and this is probably the sense, 
too, in Heb. 12: 28, as its adjunct aidovs seems to indicate. Schulz’s ob- 
jection is founded on an exegesis far from being certain, and indeed 
quite improbable. But if we allow his interpretation to be true, the ob- 
jection amounts only to this, that Paul, at one time, has employed εὐσέβεια 
(the proper Greek word) in order to express the idea of piety; and at an- 
other time, in writing to the Hebrews, he has used εὐλάβεια, (correspond- 
ing to the Heb. N77 reverence, piety), to express the same idea. What 
could be more natural for a Hebrew, than to do this ? 

(2) ‘Our author uses διαπαντός ; Paul, πάντοτε, and he very frequently 
repeats it, p. 141.’ 

Avoreytos is common among the Evangelists, and in the Septuagint. 
Paul uses it in the citation from the Old Testament, im Rom. 11: 10. 
Paul, then, was familiar with the word. In our epistle, it is found only 
iwice, viz. 9: 6. 13:15. In this same epistle we find the Pauline πάντοτε 
also, viz. in 7:25. Now as to the epistle to the Romans, Galatians, 
Ephesians, and 2 Timothy, each has the word πάντοτε but once ; the first 
epistle to Timothy and that to Titus, not at all. If the fact that maytote 
is used no more than once, is proof that our epistle is not Pauline, then 
surely these other epistles must be ranked in the same class. The same 
fact must surely afford the same argument, in both cases. But as this 
proves more than Schulz is willing to allow, we may suppose he will not 
insist on such an argument. 

(3) ‘ Our epistle uses avaxouvile and ἐχκαινήξειν 5 ; for which Paul em- 
ploys ἀνακαινοῦν and ἀγαγεοῦσϑαι, p. 142. 

᾿Ανακαινίζειν occurs only once, Heb. 6:63; ἐγκαινίζειν but twice, Heb. 
9:18. 10:20. On the other hand, ἀνακαιγοῦν is found in Paul only 
twice, 2 Cor. 4:16. Col. 3:10; and ἀναγεοῦσϑαι but once, Eph. 4: 23. 
Now as ἀνακαιγίζω, ἀνακαινόω, al ovoveow are all either of classic or 
Septuagint usage, and are of the same signification, the use of one or the 
other, so few times as they are employed in the Pauline epistles and in 
ours, can afford no argument in favour of a different writer. As to 
ἐγκαινίζειν to consecrate, to initiate, it is a verb of a different meaning from 
the others, and is not used in the sense in which Paul employs either 
ἀνακαινόω OF ἀναγεόω. 

(4) ‘There is in our epistle, an abundance of verbs ending in -ifw, such 


as can be no where else found in the New Testament, above all, in Paul’s 
epistles, p. 142.’ 


§ 27. oBJECTIONS BY SCHULZ. 203 


(a) The greater part of the verbs in -ἰζω, produced by Schulz as appro- 
priate to our epistle, are found often in the New Testament and in Paul ; 
viz. doyigerFou, in other writers of the New Testament 6 times, in Paul 34, 
in the epistle to the Hebrews but once ; ἐμφανίζειν, in New Testament 8, in 
Hebrews only twice ; καταρτίζειν, New Testament 5, Paul 5, Hebrews 8 ; 
καϑαρίζειν, New Testament 24, Paul 3, Hebrews 3; κομίζειν, New Testa- 
ment 5, Paul 3, Hebrews 3; μερίζειν, New Testament.7, Paul 5, Hebrews 
1; δρίζειν, New Testament 6, Paul 1, Hebrews 1; ἐγγίζειν, New Testa- 
ment 38, Paul 2, Hebrews 2; χωρίζειν, New Testament 5, Paul 6, He- 
brews 1; φωτέζειν, New Testament 5, Paul 4, Hebrews 2; καϑίέζειν, New 
Testament 40, Paul 4, Hebrews 4; χρηματίζεσθαι, New Testament 5, 
Paul 1, Hebrews 8. All these verbs, moreover, are common to the Sep- 
tuagint and to classic Greek. 

(b) Other verbs of this class, adduced by Schulz, are used in our epis- 
tle only once ; viz. avahoyiter Fou, 12:3; ἀνταγωνίζεσθαι, 12:4; κατα- 
γωνίζεσϑαι, 11:33; ϑεατρίζειν, 10:33; πρίζειν, 11: 37; and τυμπανίζεσ- 
Far, 11:35. The three last are denominatives, for which the Greek lan- 
guage offered no other forms; so that no choice, in this case, was left to 
the writer. All of them are of classic or Septuagint usage. 

(c) προσοχϑίζειν, Heb. 3:10, is a quotation from the Septuagint ; of 
which the use of the same word, in 3: 17, is a simple repetition. 

It turns out, then, that of the great multitude of words in -ifw, peculiar 
to our epistle, only six are employed, exclusively by it; and of’ these six, 
three are denominatives, and necessarily employed, as there was no choice 
of other forms; while the other three occur but once each, and are all 
compound verbs, common to the Septuagint and to the classics. But 
Schulz has not ventured to present us with a view of the numerous verbs 
in -i{w, employed by the New Testament writers and by Paul, which are 
not used at all in our epistle. Selecting only under a single letter, (as a 
specimen of what might be gathered from the whole), we find the follow- 
ing, καϑοπλίζομαι, κατακρημνίζω, καταναϑεματίζω, καταποντίζομαϊι, xoto- 
πτρίζομαι, καυματίζω, κυϑαρίζω, κλυδωνίζομαι, κολαφιζω, κουφίζω, κρυσταλ- 
λίζῳ, κτίζω; 12 under only one letter; which our author, with all his al- 
leged partialities for --ἰζω, never uses. Surely this is an argument unfor- 
tunately chosen, and very incorrectly stated. 

(5) “᾿Εντέλλεσϑαι is used in our epistle ; Paul uses παραγγέλλω, διατάσ- 
ow, or ἐπιτάσσω, p. 145,’ 

᾿Εντέλλεσϑαιν is employed only twice, 9: 20. 11: 22. In the New Tes- 
tament it is used 15 times, although not employed by Paul. Paul em- 
ploys παρραγγέλλω only in 1 Corinthians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalo- 
nians, and 1 Timothy; διατάσσω only in 1 Corinthians, Galatians, and 
- Titus ; ἐπιτάσσω only once in Philemon. Do not these words differ as 
much from each other, as each of them does from ἐντέλλεσθαι; and will 
not the reasoning be the same, to prove that Galatians and Titus or Phile- 
mon are spurious, as that our epistle is? And what shall be said of all 
those epistles, where none of these words are at all employed ? 

(6) ‘Our author employs καϑίζω in a neuter sense, 1: 3. 8: 1. 10:12. 
12: 2; Paul employs this verb in a transitive sense, p. 143.’ 

In the quotation by Paul in 1 Cor. 10: 7, it is used in a neuter sense ; as 


204 ὃ 27. OBJECTIONS BY SCHULZ. 


itis in 2 Thess.2:4. It has a transitive sense only in 1 Cor. 6: 4. Eph. 
1:20. It occurs in no other case, in Paul, so that his usage is equally 
divided. In our epistle, it occurs in the same formula, in all the four in- 
stances where it is employed ; and all of these instances refer to Ps. 110: 
1, (Sept. 109: 1), where is the like usage of κάϑου. 

(7) ‘ Abstract appellations of God, such as ϑρόνος τῆς χάριτος, πνεῦμα 
τῆς χάριτος, ϑρόνος τῆς μεγαλοσύνης, are unheard of in Paul’s writings, 
p. 144. 

What then is πρεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης, Rom. 1:4; ϑειότης, 1: 203; ἀλήϑειαν 
tov Θεοῦ, true God, 1: 25; also ψεῦδος, false God, ibid. ; and πγεῦμα ζωῆς, 
8:2? Is the usage of employing abstract words for concrete ones, foreign 
to the style of Paul? Every one who reads this apostle with attention, 
will be able to answer this question. 

(8) ‘Our epistle calls Christ rpc τῆς ᾿ δόξης, 1: 3; Paul says, 
εἰκὼν τοῦ ϑεοῦ ἀοράταυ, 2 Cor. 4: 4. Col. 1:15, and μορφὴ θεοῦ in Phil. 
2:6, p. 1447 

Is not μορφὴ ϑεοῦ as different from εἰκὼν ϑεοῦ ἀοράτου, as ἀπαΐγασμα 
τῆς δόξης is from the same? And if this argument prove any thing, does 
it not prove that the epistle to the Philippians, which employs μορφὴ ϑεοῦ 
(and not εἰκὼν Pov), must also be spurious ? 

(9) ‘In our epistle xexovyew is used, 11: 37. 13:3; Paul uses ϑλίβω 
instead of this, p. 145. 

Paul uses στεγοχωρέομαν three times in his second epistle to the Corin- 
thians, (and not once any where else), to express the same idea that he 
elsewhere expresses by ϑλίβω. Is this epistle therefore spurious ἢ 

(10) ‘ Our epistle employs ἐνθύμησις and ἕνγοια, for which Paul uses 
διαλογισμός and λογισμός, p. 145. 

Aoyiouos is found 2 Cor. 10: 4; but διαλογισμός in Romans, first Co- 
rinthians, Philippians and first Timothy. Is the second Corinthians spuri- 
ous because it does not use διαλογισμός 3 

(11) ‘ Our epistle uses ἀχλιγής ; for which Paul employs ἑδραῖος, ἀμετα- 
κίνητος, OF μὴ μετακινούμενος, p. 145. 

᾿Αχλινής is used once only, Heb. 10: 23. So ἀμετακένητος is used only 
in 1 Cor. 15: 58, and μὴ petaxwotuevos only in Col. 1:23. Now as in 
first Corinthians and in Colossians both, Paul uses ἑδραῖος as well as these 
words, in order to express the same idea, shall the like choice of a syno- 
nyme, in another letter, be denied him? And is it reasonable that it 
should expose his letter to the charge of spuricusness, because that, 
out of various synonymes, he has sometimes taken one and sometimes 
another ? 

(12) § Σιυμπαϑεῖν, μετριοπαϑεῖν, and παϑεῖν are current in our epistle ; 
Paul uses συμπάσχειν ὃ and πάσχειν, p. 14δ.᾽ 

Paul uses πάσχειν five times only, in four of which the present tense is 
required, and of course this form must be used, as there is no present 
παϑέω. He also employs ἐπάϑετε twice, viz. in Gal.3: 4 and 1 Thess. 
2:14. Our epistle has this same form, but only three times, 5: 8. 9: 26. 
13:12. Here then are the same forms, in both Paul and our epistle. 
Besides, are not πάσχω, συμπάσχω, and συμπαϑέω commingled forms, and 


§ 27. ΟΒΙΕΟΤΙΟΝΒ BY SCHULZ. 205 


every where exchanged for each other? As to μετριοπαϑεῖν, it is used 
but once (Heb. 5: 2), and is there employed in its classical sense. 

(13) ‘In our epistle, we find μετέσχε, κατάσχωμεν ; but in Paul, μετέχειν, 
κατέχειν, p. 145.’ 

Once only is μετέσχε used, Heb. 2:14. On the other hand, the Pauline 
μετέχων is also employed once, in Heb. 5: 19, Besides, in all Paul’s ac- 
knowledged epistles, μετέχω occurs only five times, and all of these are 
in the first epistle to the Corinthians. Is this the only epistle which is 
genuine ? 

As to κατάσχωμεν, it is found in our epistle only twice, 3:6. 3:14; 
while the alleged Pauline κατέχειν is also used in 10: 43. Besides, are 
not both of these one and the same verb, in different tenses? And may 
not the writer of different epistles employ even a different tense of the 
same verb, when the case demands it, without hazarding the reputation 
of his letters in respect to genuineness ? 

(14) ‘ Verbal nouns feminine, particularly such as end in -ovc, are un- 
usually frequent in our epistle ; and, when put in the Accusative by εἰς, 
they are employed instead of the Inf. mode with εἰς τό before it ; which 
latter is the construction that Paul employs, even to excess, and in a man- 
ner not consentaneous with Greek idiom, p. 146, 

Paul is no stranger to the employment of nouns in -ove with εἰς before 
them in the Acc., in the sense of the Inf. mode with εἰς 10; e. g. Rom. 
1:17. 3: 25. 5:18. 14:1. 1 Cor. 11: 24, 25. In regard to other fem. 
nouns, put in the ace. with sic, and used as the Inf. with εἰς τό, see Rom. 
1: 5,163 2) 7y 5216.) 6: 19, 22, 9: 21 bis, 22, 23. 1021;:10.) 11: 915: 
18. 16326. L Cor. 1:9, 2:7. 5:5. 10: 31. 16 ὉΠ 515 All) these cases 
have respect to nouns fem. only; very many cases might be added of 
nouns of the masculine form, employed in the same way. The above in- 
stances of the feminine forms are selected from only two epistles of Paul. 
I have found more than forty cases, of the same kind, in his remaining 
acknowledged epistles. 

On the other hand ; as to the excessive aud unclassical use of the Inf. 
with εἰς to by Paul, I do not find it to be as Schulz has stated it. In Ro- 
mans, I find 15 cases of Infinitives with εἰς τό; in 1 Cor. there are 5 cases ; 
in 2 Cor. there are 4; in Gal. one; in Eph. 8; in Phil. 4; in Col. not’ 
one; in 1 Tim., 2 Tim., Titus and Philemon, not one. But in our epis- 
tle, we have the Inf. with εἷς τό, im 2:17. 7:25. 8:3. 9: 14, 28. 10:2 
(διὰ τό), 10: 15 (μετὰ τό). 12:10. 13: 21; 1. 6. 7 eases just the same as 
the Pauline ones, and two more (10: 2, 15) of the same nature. If the 
want of frequency, with respect to this construction, proves the spurious- 
ness of our epistle; what does the same thing prove, in respect to the 
longer epistle, called the first to the Corinthians, which exhibits it only 

jive times? And what is to be said of the five epistles named above, 
which do not at all exhibit this favourite construction of Paul ? 

In regard to the frequency of nouns ending in -ovg, the proportion is 
not greater than in several of the Pauline epistles; as any one may deter- 
mine by consulting a Greek Concordance. 

(15) ‘ Our epistle uses παροξυσμός:; Paul ζῆλος, p. 148, 


206 § 27. OBJECTIONS BY SCHULZ. 


ΠῈαροξυσμός is used only once, Heb. 10: 24, and there not in the sense 
of ζῆλος. 

(16) ‘Our epistle uses πρεσβύτεροι for ancients; Paul uses σεατέρες, p. 
149,’ 

Paul uses πατέρες in this way, only in Rom. 9:5, 11:28. 15:8. As 
to πρεσβύτεροι, it isa common word for D12)7 , ancients, Matt. 15: 2. Mark 
7: 3,5, also Sept. What should hinder Paul from electing either of these 
synonymes at his pleasure ? 

(17) ‘Our author uses προβλέπομαι ; Paul προετοιμάζω, προορίζω, προτί-- 
Oyu. Our author uses ἀντικαϑίστημι; Paul ἀνϑίέστημι, p. 149, 

“Προβλέπομαιν occurs only in 11: 40, and is synonymous, in some of its 
meanings, with the other verbs named. Besides, is there not as much 
departure from uniformity, in employing the several words, προετοιμάξω, 
προορίζω, προτίϑημι, as there is in using προβλέπομαι 2 And is not ἀντι- 
καϑίστημι a classic and Sept. word, atid synonymous with ἀνϑέστημι ? 
Must a writer never employ but one ‘and the same word ? 


Ii. Words employed in the epistle to the Hebrews in a sense different from that in which 
Paul uses them. 


Some of the objections drawn from words of this class, have already 
been noticed above. 

(18) ‘ Maxgoduuta or μακροϑυμεῖν means patient waiting or expectation, 
in our epistle ; in Paul, it means lenity towards others, p. 150.’ 

Paul employs it in other senses than that of lenity; 6. g. Col. 1:11, 
patient endurance of evil; so 2'Tim. 3: 10, prob. 4: 2, see Wahl’s Lex. In 
the same sense probably it is used in Heb. 6: 12, 15. But if this be not 
allowed, it is enough to say, that μακροϑυμία in the sense of patient expec- 
tation, is agreeable to Hellenistic usage. See Job 7:16 Sept., and James 
ιν. toh 

(19) ‘ Καταλείπεσϑαι and ἀπολείπεσθαι are used by our author in the 
sense of restare, reliquum esse ; they are not so used by Paul, p. 150. 

Καταλείπεσθαν is used actively in the like sénse, in Rom. 11: 4, and 
this sense is classic and Hellenistic. ᾿“πολείπεσϑαι is used in the active 
voice by Paul, in 2 Tim. 4: 13, 20, in a sense as kindred to the use of it 
in our epistle (where it is passive), as one of these voices can be to the 
other, in regard to a verb of this nature. 

(20) “Ὑπόστασις, in our epistle, has a different sense from that in Paul’s 
epistles, p. 150. 

I am not able to perceive the difference between ὑπόστασις in 2 Cor. 
9:4, 11: 17, and in Heb. 3: 14. 11:1. These are all the instances in 
which this word is employed by Paul or in our epistle, excepting Heb. 1: 
3, where the word is used in the classical sense of the later Greek writers. 
See Wahl’s Lex. on ὑπόστασις. 

(21) ‘In Hebrews, λύγος means word given, assurance, declaration ; in 
Paul, doctrine, command, word in opposition to deed, p. 150.’ 

So also in Heb. 13: 7 λόγος means doctrine, as also in 5: 13. 6: 1. :On 
the other hand, in 1 Cor. 15: 54 it means assurance or declaration ; as al- 
so in Rom. 9: 6, 9. 1 Cor. 4: 19. 2 Cor. 1:18. 1 Tim. 1: 15.3: 1. 4:9. 


§ 27. OBJECTIONS BY SCHULZ. 207 


Surely there is no ground for distinction here. In the sense of account 
too, Paul and our epistle agree ; 6. g. Rom. 14: 12. Heb, 4: 13. 18: 17. 

(22) “ Τάξις, in Hebrews, means series, succession ; Paul uses it for good 
order, arrangement, p. 150.’ 

Τάξις in the Septuagint answers to 94n, prescribed order or arrange- 
ment, Prov. 29: 24 [31:26]; to Fry, Job 28: 13, Aquila’s translation. 
In the Sept. Job 24: 5. 36: 28, it has the sense of prescribed arrangement. 
This sense fits equally well 1 Cor. 14:40. Col. 2:5, and all the cases 
where it is used in our epistle, viz. 5: 6, 10. 6: 20. 7: 11, 17, 21, all of 
which are merely the same instance of τάξις repeated. Even if this exe- 
gesis be not admitted, still it is enough to say, that τάξις is employed in 
both the senses named by Schulz, in the Septuagint Greek and also in 
classic authors. May not Paul, like any other writer, employ the word 
in different parts of his writings, (as he does a multitude of other words), 
with different shades of meaning ? 

(23) “λείων is used by our author in the sense of praestantior ; by 
Paul, only for more, p. 151. 

In Heb. 3: 3. 7: 23, πλείων is used in the sense of more; certainly in 
the last instance. On the other hand, it occurs only once in the sense of 
praestantior, 11: 4. And this sense is supported both by classic and Sep- 
tilagint usage. 


Ill. Favourite expressions and peculiar phraseology. 


Of these Schulz has collected together a great number; so great, that 
if they are truly what he names them, they must render the genuineness 
of our epistle suspected by every critical reader. But whether he has 
rightly attributed to these words and expressions the characteristics which 
he gives them, remains to be examined. 

(24) ‘The use of γάρ in our epistle, is excessive ; so much so, that a 
translator, if he means to avoid misleading his readers, must often pass it 
over unnoticed. Paul is less frequent in the use of this particle; and 
employs it only in cases where it has a meaning, p. 152. 

In the New Testament before me, the epistle of Paul to the Romans 
occupies fourteen pages; that to the Hebrews, ten. In Romans I find 
γάρ 145 times, i. e. on an average, more than 10 to a page ; in our epistle 
[ find it 91 times, i. e. on an average a little more than 9 to a page. So 
much for this favourite particle of the author of our epistle. 

Bleek (Review p. 25) has noticed the answer to Schulz contained in the 
above paragraph ; but he remarks, that the question is not how often γάρ 
is used, but whether it is employed correctly and in its proper place ; 
which he thinks is overlooked by me. 

But is not the essence of Schulz’s objection drawn from the frequency 
of its use? And in replying to this, is not the frequency, of course, the 
main question with me? The question whether γάρ is classically used, 
in all cases in the New Testament, even by any of its writers, I had sup- 
posed was no more a question. Even Schulz acknowledges that Luke, 
(the almost classical writer), employs γάρ very much as it is employed in 
the epistle to the Hebrews, p. 152. And when Bleek challenges me to 


298 § 27. OBJECTIONS BY SCHULZ. 


8:4, 7:12, 13 and 5: 11, 13, I reply by inviting his attention to Rom. 
1:18. 5:7. 8:6. 8:7 οὐδὲ γάρ. 8:15, 18, 24 τῇ γάρ. 9: 28, where it is 
superadded to the Septuagint. It were easy to double this list from this 
single epistle. If Bleek should endeavour to shew, that the usage in these 
cases may, in some tolerable measure be justified by classic, and specially 
by Hellenistic usage, then 1 will pledge myself to shew that the instances 
which he has specified, or may be able to specify, from our epistle are 
equally conformed to these usages. Nay, I venture to affirm, that any 
and all of them may be justified, by principles laid down in Passow’s 
admirable Lexicon, under the word γάρ. The developement which this 
writer has made, shews that γάρ, in many of the classics, is used with 
very little if any more precision than in the New Testament. 

Bleek further remarks, on this occasion, that ‘I have laboured too se- 
verely to set aside the objections of Schulz in a kind of mechanical way, 
and have not directed my attention rather to the great and striking diver- 
sities of style in our epistle, p. 26.’ 

My reply is, that I have answered the objections in the very form in 
which they were urged ; and that this is the proper way to answer them. 
I am grieved that critics could have ever made such mechanical objec- 
tions as Dr. Schulz has done ; but not that I have replied to them in such 
a way as the nature of the objections demanded. 

In respect to the great characteristics of style in our epistle, my work 
will testify for itself whether I have overlooked them. 

(25) ‘The words προσφέρειν and moocgooe are used, times almost 
without number in our epistle, in respect to Christ’s offering up himself 
before God by means of his death; Paul does not use the verb at all, nor 
the noun but once (Eph. 5: 2) in this sense, p. 153.’ 

These words are employed in respect to the offering by Christ, in Heb. 
9: 14, 25, 28. 10: 10, 12, 14, str instances; which, considering the nature 
of the comparison between Christ’s death and the Jewish offerings, is 
rather to be wondered at on account of unfrequent, than frequent occur- 
rence. But is it not truly surprising that Schulz should produce, as ex- 
amples which have respect to the offering made by the death of Christ, 
προσφέρειν and προσφορά in Heb. 5: 1, 3, 7. 8: 3, 4. 9: 7,9. 10: 1, 2,5, 
8, 11, 18, 11: 4,17. 12:7? All of these refer to Jewish offerings, ex- 
cepting 12:7 which has wholly another sense. Nor is the language of 
our epistle limited to προσφέρειν, and προσφορά. The writer uses ayageé- 
ow, in 7: 27 bis, 9:28. 13:15; which is also used by other New Testa- 
ment writers, e. δ. James 2:21. 1 Pet. 2:5, 24. As to the frequency 
with which προσφορά is used, it is found only in five instances ; two of 
these (10:5, 8) are quotations from the Old Testament; and the other 
three, (10: 10, 14, 18), are all plainly occasioned by the quotations just 
named, as they are employed in reasoning upon it. No where else, in 
our epistle, does the writer use this word; but he employs ϑυσία no less 
than fifteen times, which word Paul has employed five times. Consider- 
ing the nature of the discussion in our epistle, is there any ground for the 
objection made by Schulz ? 


§27. ΟΒΙΕΟΤΙΟΝΒ BY SCHULZ. 209 


(26) “Lyyitew τῷ Dem, and προσέρχεσϑαι τῷ Jeo are frequent forms in 
our epistle ; but not so in Paul, p. 153. 

The first of these phrases occurs only once,7:19. The frequency of it, 
therefore, should not have been alleged. But the same verb, as applied 
to time, is used in Heb. 10: 25, and in Rom. 13:12. That ἐγγίζειν τῷ Deo 
was a usual form of Hebrew Greek, is evident from James 4: 8. In re- 
spect to προσέρχεσϑοαι, it is nearly a synonyme with ἐγγέζειν, and is used a 
great number of times in the New Testament, and by Paul in 1 Tim. 6: 3, 
but in the figurative sense of attending to, giving heed to. The use of it 
in our epistle, (it is employed seven times), is occasioned by its correspon- 
dence with the Hebrew ΞΡ ΤΙ, which describes the action of approaching 
God with an offering ; an idea which, from the nature of the comparisons 
instituted, must of necessity frequently occur. 

(27) «Such forms as λαμβάνειν πεῖραν---μισϑαποδοσίαν---ἀρχήν--- 
Typ —vexgove—énayyehiaw—énayyshiag, are frequent and peculiar to our 
epistle, p. 155.’ 

In Paul too we have λα μ βάνειν χάριν---ἀποστολήν---σημεῖον----καταλ-- 
λαγή»ν---περισσείαν---ἀφορμήν---πνεῦμα δουλείας----πνεύμα υἱοϑεσίας.---κρί- 
μα---πνεῦμα τοῦ κόσμου ---μισϑόν--- βραβεῖον---στέφανον.---ἄρτον---οἰκοδομήν 
ΞΡ ψώνιον----' ὑμᾶς---πρόσωπον---ἐπαγγελίαν----μορφήν---ἐντολήν ---ὑπόμνησιν. 
Is not this equally peculiar 3 

(28) “Διαϑήκη, and the compounds and derivates of τυϑέναι, are unusu- 
ally frequent i in our epistle, p. 154,’ 

“ιαϑήκη is employed by Paul, nine times; but in our epistle, where 
the nature of the comparison lies between the old covenant and the new, 
the more frequent use of this word was altogether to be expected. Out 
of the 17 instances, however, in which our author uses it, six are quoted 
from the Old Testament, viz. 8: 8,9 bis, 10.9: 20. 10:16; and three 
more are in phrases transferred from the Old Testament, viz. 9: 4 bis. 
10: 29; so that eight instances only belong properly to our author’s style. 
Could a less number than this be rationally expected, cee ee the na- 
ture of the discussion ? 

As to the uncommonly frequent use of the compounds and dativates of 
τίϑημι in our epistle, the following is the result of comparison. Ζ]ιατίϑη- 
μι, four times in Hebrews, two of which are in quotations, viz. 8: 10, 10: 
16. In the other two cases, the word is employed in a sense different 
from the one usual in the New Testament, viz. 9: 16,17. Metadsarg is 
one of the ἅπαξ λεγόμενα of our epistle ; (see on these § 29). Meratidnus 
is used three times; also in Gal. 1.6; ἀϑετεῖν, Hebrews once, Paul six 
times, ἀϑέτησις, Hebrews twice ; γνομοϑετεῖν, Hebrews twice, (νομοϑεσία 
in Rom. 9: 4); ; ἐπίϑεσις, Hebrews once, Paul twice ; πρόϑεσις, Hebrews 
once, Paul six times; ἀποτέϑημι, Hebrews once, Paul four times. Can 
the position of Schulz be supported, when the result of investigation turns 
out thus ? 

(99) “ Τελειοῦν, to bring to perfection, to advance to the highest place, is ἃ 
favourite expression of our epistle, p. 154.’ 

It is so employed in 2: 10. 5:9, 7: 28. 12: 23; but in a different ac- 
ceptation in 7: 19. 9:9. 10:1, 14. 11: 40, (perhaps the last instance be- 
longs to the other category). ΤῸ the former peculiar sense of τελειόω (as 


27 


“10 §27. OBJECTIONS BY SCHULZ. 


allejecslya Baw is no stranger, Phil. 3: 12, comp. 2 Cor. 12:9. Other 
Hellenists also employ it in the same manner; Luke 13: 32. The deri- 
vate forms τελείωσις and τελειότης, 7: 11. 12:2, occur once only in this 
epistle. Τελείωσις also in Luke 1: 45, 

(30) ‘ Kosittwy is employed frequently, by our author, in a sense alto- 
gether peculiar, viz. in the sense of more excellent, p. 154. 

In the same sense Paul uses it in 1 Cor. 12: 91 ; a sense, moreover, 
which is common to classic and Hellenistic usage. 

(31) “Αἰάνιος is unusually frequent; e. g. αἰώνιος joined with σωτηρία---- 
χρίμα---πνεῦμα---λύτρωσις---κληρονομία---διαϑήκη, ete. p. 154, 

But Paul uses αἰώνιος Corj—yoovos—dedg¢—Guio0s—aiowia βλεπόμενα--- 
αἰώνιος ὕλεϑρος--παράκλησις---χράτος---δόξη. Paul uses the word 24 times; 
our epistle oly sit. 

(32) “Ζωή and ζῇν are used very frequently by our author, to denote 
perpetuity, lasting, TE nenweiie p. 155,’ 

So they are by Paul; 6. g. Rom. 9: 26. 2 Cor. 3: 3. 6:16. 1 Thess. 1: 
9. 1 Tim. 3:15. 4: 10; and this sense is frequent in the New Testament. 

(33) ‘The frequent use of πᾶς in the singular is striking, p. 155,’ 

Our epistle makes ten pages in the edition of the New Testament lying 
before me ; and I find πᾶς in the singular, 16 times in it, i. e. on an ave- 
rage about once and a half to each page. The epistle to the Ephesians 
makes four and a half pages, and I find the same πὰς in it 23 times, 1. e. on 
an average more than five times to each page. So much for the striking- 
ly frequent use of στᾶς in our epistle ! 

(34) ‘The words oder, χωρίς, ἐάνπερ, and ἀδύνατον are unusually fre- 
quent in our epistle, p. 155,’ 

“Ὅϑεν is not used in the acknowledged epistles of Paul, (see in respect 
to ἅπαξ λεγόμενα, δ 99); but in the New Testament it is common. ᾿ Χωρίς 
Paul uses 15 times. ΘΗΝ is peculiar to Hebrews, and occurs thrice. 
᾿Αδύνατον is employed four times in our epistle ; twice by Paul; and four 
times by the other writers of the New Testament. 

(35) “Compounds of words with εὖ, are favourite forms with our au- 
thor, p. 155.’ 

The following results will shew how far this is well founded. Εὔϑετος 
occurs in Heb. once; εὐθύτης, once; εὐάρεστον, Heb. 1, Paul 8; εὐαρεστέω, 
Heb. 3; EVOQETTOS, Heb. 1; εὐλάβεια, Heb. 2; εὐλαβέομαι, Heb. 1; εἰποι-- 
ta, Heb. 1; εὐπερίστατος, Heb. 1; εὐλογία, Heb. 2, Paul 9; εὐλογεῖν, Heb. 
6, Paul 8; εὔκαιρος, Heb. 1; εὐδοκεῖν, Heb. 3, Paul 11. On the other 
hand compare the compounds of this sort in Paul, which do not occur in 
our epistle ; viz. εὐγενής, εὐαγγὲ ἕλιον, εὐαγγελιστῆς, εὐδοκία, εὐεργεσία, εὐϑέ- 
ως, εὐκαιρέω, εὐκαίρως, svdoy ετός, εὔνοια, εὐμετάδοτος, εὐοδοῦμαι, εὐπρόσδεκ- 
τος, εὐπρόσεδρος, εὐπροσωπέω, εὐσὲ (ever, εὐσεβεῖν, εὐσεβῶς, εὔσημος, εὕσ-- 
πλάγχνος, εὐσχημόνως, εὐσχημόνη, εὐσχή μων, εὐτραπελία, εὐφημία, εὔφημος, 
εὐφραίνω, εὐχαριστέω, εὐχαριστία, εὐχάριστος, εὔχρηστος, εὐψυχέω, εὐωδία. 
Is there any foundation for the assertion of Schulz? 

(36) ‘ Compounds with ave are unusually frequent, in our author, Ρ. 156.’ 

The fact stands thus. Once only are ἀναδέχομαι, ἀναϑεωρέω, ἀνακαινγί- 
ζω, ἀνάγω, ἀνακάμπτω, ἀναλογίζομαι, ἀνασταυρόω, ἀνατέλλω, used in our 
epistle. “4yagpéow is employed four times. In Paul, on the other hand, 


§ 27. oBsECTIONS BY SCHULZ. 211 


we find, ἀναβαίνω fi ἀναγγέλλω 2, ἀναχινώσκω 8, ἀνάγνωσις 2, ἀνάγω 
ἀναζάω a ἀναζωπυρέω 1, ἀναϑάλλω 1, ἀνάϑεμα ὧ» ἀνακαίνωσις 2, ἀνακαι- 
vow 1, ἀνακαλύπτω 2, ἀνωκεφαλαίομαι 2, ἀνακόπτω 2, ἃ ἀνακχρένω 10, ἀναλαμ- 
βάνω 4, ἀνάλυσις 1, ἀναλύω 1, ἀναλίσκω iL, “ἀναλογία ᾽ν ἀναμένω 1, ἀνανεόω 
1, ἀνανήφω, if ἀνάξιος ls ἀναξίως 2; ἀναπαύω 4, ἀναπέμπω 1, ἀναπολύγητος 
2, ἀναπληρόω ἐπὶ ἀναστατόω 1, ἀνατέϑημι 1, ἀνατρέπω 2, ἀναψύχω 1; all of 
which are wanting in the epistle to the Hebrews. Is there any want of 
JSrequency in compounds of this sort, in the writings of Paul? Rather is 
there not even a want of frequency, with respect to words of this class, in 
our epistle ὃ 

(37) ‘Good periods, with comparisons by ὅσον--τοσοῦτο, with εἰ yag— 
mas δὲ, With καϑῶς, etc., are not so frequent in Paul’s writings as here, 
Ρ. 156. 

In what other epistle has Paul had so frequent occasion for comparisons 2 

(38) “Σωτηρία, in the sense of Christian happiness, is peculiar to our 
epistle. “AytiAoyia is also peculiar, p. 156.’ 

(a) Our epistle does not limit the word σωτηρία to such a sense. It is 
employed in its usual acceptation, in 2: 10. 11:7, and probably in 5: 9. 
6:9. 9:28. On the other hand, Paul uses σωτηρία for Christian happi- 
ness, Rom. 10: 1, 10. 11: 11. Eph. 1: 18. 1 Thess. 5: 8, 9. 2 Thess. 2: 
13. 2 Tim. 3:15. (b) As to extidoyia, it is not found, it is true, in Paul’s 
acknowledged epistles ; but it is in Jude v. 11; and the verb ἀγτιλέγω, is 
jean Oi) 21.0 Dire 9,2: 9: 

(39) ‘ Maotuesiy and μαρτυρεῖσϑαι, in the sense of bearing honorary tes- 
timony, are peculiar to our epistle, p. 156.’ 

They are not. See Rom. 10:2. 1 Tim. 5: 10; and often in the gos- 
pels, as may be seen in any of the New Testament lexicons. 

(40) ‘ The following habitual expressions, so often employed by Paul, 
are wanting in our epistle ; 3 Viz. ov ϑέλω ὑμᾶς ἀγνοεῖν----ϑέλω ὑμᾶς εἰδέναι--- 
τοῦτο δέ φημυ---γνωρίζω (γνωρίζομεν) δὲ ὑμῖν---οἴδα γάρ--οἴδαμεν ὁ δὲ ete.— 
χινώσκειν δὲν “μᾶς β βούλομαι.--τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν---αλλ ἐρεῖ τις---ἔρεϊς οὖν μοι---ἢ 
ἀγνοεῖτε---μὴ γένοιτο---τί οὐν----τὶ γάρ---ἄρα οὐνγ---μενοῦνγε, p. 157 seq. 

If the want of these forms of expression in our epistle proves it to be spu- 
rious, then the same argument must prove a great part of Paul’s epistles to 
be so. E. g. ov ϑέλω ὑμᾶς ἀγνοεῖν is not in Gal., Phil., Col., 2 Thess., 1 
Tim., 2 Tim., Tit., Philemon. Favourite as Schulz represents this phrase 
to be, it is found only in Romans twice, 1 Corinthians twice; and in 2 
Cor., ov γὰρ ϑέλομεν ὑμᾶς ἀγγοεῖν oOnce.—Oéhw δὲ ὑμᾶς εἰδέναν is once in 1 
Cor. 11: 8, and wanting in all the other Pauline epistles ; an expression, 
therefore, singularly favorite. —Toivto δὲ φημι is in 1 Cor. twice, and want- 
ing in all the rest of Paul’s νγουκβ.--- Γνωρίζω (γνωρίζομεν) δὲ ὑμῖν, Paul 
uses four times. The verb is employed some twenty times, in all his 
epistles, but not in the formula mentioned by Schulz. Οἶδα, οἴδαμεν, ete., 
are used very often by Paul; in our epistle, less frequently. In 10: 30 
we have οἴδαμεν, and five other cases of derivates from εἴδω or εἰδέω OC- 
cur.—Ivoxe δὲ ὑμᾶς βούλομαι, occurs only in Phil. 1: 12.—Té οὖν 
ἐροῦμεν, in Rom. six times, and no where else. Which then is spurious, 
the epistle to the Romans, or all the others ?—Eoeis οὖν μοι, only twice, 
Rom. 9: 19. 11: 19.—Eosi τις, only once, 1 Cor. ‘15:87, ἀγνοεῖτε, ON- 


212 § 28. oBsJECTIONS BY SEYFFARTH. 


ly twice, Rom. 6: 3. 7: 1.—My γένοιτο, only in Gal. and Romans.—Té 

γάρ, not in Gal., Eph., Col. 1 Thess., 2 Thess., 1 Tim.,2 Tim. Titus.—T¢ 
ovr, not in any ag Paul’s epistles except Rom., 1 Cor., ahd Galatians.—‘4ou 
οὖν only in the epistle to the Romans, Gal. once, Eph. once, 1 Thess. 

once, 2 Thess. once. ~4oe is used by our author too, 4: 9. 12: 8.—Me- 
vourye, in Rom. and Phil.; but no where else in Paul’s epistles. 

Certain is it, then, that the same argument which would prove the spu- 
riousness of our epietley would also prove the spuriousness of more or less 
of Paul’s acknowledged epistles; for there is not a single phrase mention- 
ed by Schulz, in all his list of “favourite expressions often repeated by 
Paul,” which is not wanting in more or less of his acknowledged epis- 
tles. Only the words οἶδα, οἴδαμεν, etc. are to be excepted. Many of 
these favouritisms, We see too, upon examination turn out to belong ΚΝ 
to some single epistle ; ie δ. ϑέλω δὲ U ὑμῦς εἰδέναι, τοῦτο δὲ φημι, γινώσκειν 
δὲ ὑμᾶς βούλομαι, τέ οἷν ἐροῦμεν, ἐρεῖς οὖν μοι, ἐρεῖ τις, aud 1) ἀγνοεῖτε. It 
is difficult to conceive how a man of Schulz’s intelligence, could willing- 
ly risk the hazard of such arguments as these. 

I have omitted no argument of a philological nature, which Schulz has 
brought forward, except a few ἅπαξ λεγόμενα, of which I shall hereafter 
take notice. If the reader hesitates in regard to the sufficiency of some 
parts of these answers to Schulz, which I have laid before him, I request 
him to suspend his decision, until he shall have read through the sequel ; 
in which the general method of argument used by Schulz and Seyffarth, 
will be the subject of further observation. Before I proceed’ to this, 
however, the allegations of Seyffarth, (in cases wherein they differ from 
those of Schulz, and from those made by Bertholdt and others, which 
have already been examined), must be considered. I do not aim at writ- 
ing a regular review of Seyflarth’s whole book ; but merely to pass in re- 
view such arguments of his, as have not already been examined, omitting 
only those, on which it cannot well be supposed that he placed any im- 
portant reliance. 


§ 28. Objections of Seyfarth examined. 


1 shall first examine the objections drawn from the alleged “ peculiarity 
of the matters treated of,” in our epistle. 

(1) § Paul concerns himself only with those churches which he himself 
established. He was not the founder of any church purely Hebrew. 
The person who in our epistle addresses the Hebrews, must have sus- 
tained a relation to them very different from that which Paul sustained, 
§ 47, 

[5 any thing plainer, however, throughout the whole epistle, than the 
fact that the writer of it was not a founder or bishop of the church whom 
he addresses? Not a hint of either of these relations is discoverable. 
The circumstances, then, agree altogether with the condition of Paul, 
who did not found or preside over the Hebrew churches. But the as- 
sumption that Paul never concerned himself with any churches of which 
he was not himself the founder, is manifestly erroneous. Did not this 


§ 28. OBJECTIONS BY SEYFFARTH. 213 


apostle write his epistle to the Romans, before he ever saw Rome? See 
Rom. 1: 13. 15:24. Are not the expressions in this epistle as affec- 
tionate and as authoritative, to say the least, as in the epistle to the He- 
brews? Paul, surely, had a very deep sympathy and tender concern for 
his Jewish brethren ; see Rom. 9:1 seq. 10: 1seq. 11: 566. Compare, 
for expressions of kindness, Heb. 6:10 seq. 10: 32 seq., im particular v. 
34, if the reading δεσμοῖς μου be adopted; and Titmann, in his recent 
edition of the New Testament, has adopted it. 

(2) ‘Paul no where treats formally of the dignity of Jesus; nor does 
he any where employ such arguments as our epistle exhibits, against de- 
fection from Christianity, p. 104.’ 

Paul no where else treats of the resurrection, in such a manner as the 
1 Cor. xv. does; nor of many other subjects, discussed in that epistle: 
does it follow, that Paul did not write the first epistle to the Corinthians, 
because it has these peculiarities? Besides, the fact is not correctly 
stated by Seyffarth. Surely Rom. 9:5. Eph. 1: 20—23. Phil. 2: 6—11. 
Col. 1: 13—19, contain something about the dignity of Christ; not to 
mention many other passages. That the apostle has no where, except in 
our epistle, entered into a formal comparison of Christ with others, is 
true; but it is enough to say, that no where else did the occasion de- 
mand it. 

(3) ‘ Paul every where inveighs against Jewish opinions; urges justifi- 
cation χωρὶς ἔργων νόμου, and ἐκ πίστεως ; dwells on the glorious advent 
of the Messiah ; and urges the equal right of the Gentiles to the blessings 
of the Christian religion. Not a word of all this, in the epistle to the 
Hebrews, p. 105, 

And where is there any thing of all this, in the first epistle to the Co- 
rinthians ? Must a writer always speak of the very same subjects, and in 
the very same way? And if he does not, but speaks pro re nata, is it any 
just ground of suspicion, that such of his letters as are not exactly like 
certain other ones, cannot be genuine ? 

(4) ‘It is wonderful that our episile should represent the devil as the 
cause of death, 2: 14; Paul knows nothing of such a cause, see 2 Tim. 
1:10. 1 Cor. 15: 55, p. 1067 

This objection is built on an exegesis of Heb. 2:14 which cannot be 
supported; see the commentary on this passage. But if the exegesis 
were correct, it would not follow that the apostle might not, in one pas- 
sage, express a sentiment which he has no where else expressed. See 
for example, 1 Cor. 15: 22—28. After all, it is not true that Paul does 
not recognize Satan as the author of the condemning sentence which 
Adam incurred ; see 1 Tim. 2: 13, 14. 2 Cor. 11 : 8, comp. with Rom. 
5:12 seq. 

(5) ‘ Paul, when he writes to any church, enters into a particular con- 
sideration of all their wants and woes and dangers; e. g. in his epistles to 
the Romans, Corinthians, and Galatians, p. 107 seq. 

And does Paul any where shew a deeper sympathy for those whom he 
addresses, than the writer of our epistle exhibits? Must every epistle 
which a man writes, be de omni scibili, or de omni re possibili? As Paul 
was not bishop of the church whom he addresses in our epistle, it was 


214 § 28. OBJECTIONS BY SEYFFARTH. 


not to be expected that he would use the same degree of freedom, in all 
respects, which he uses in some others of his epistles. Particularly, we 
may well suppose that he would be sparing in localities and personalities, 
if his epistle was designed to be encyclical ; as we have good reason to 
‘ believe it was. 

(6) «Our epistle every were urges to τελειότητα ; not so Paul. With 
our author too, the Sonship of Christ is the great τελειότης of religion ; 
not so in Paul. See 1 Cor. 3: 11, where it is reckoned as the fowndation. 
Where too has Paul compared Christ to the angels? p. 110. 

That Paul does not urge forward those whom he addresses, to a high- 
er degree of Christian knowledge and virtue, is an allegation which 1 be- 
lieve to be novel, and which needs to be met only when something is 
brought forward to substantiate it. As to the doctrine of Christ’s Sonship 
being reckoned as the foundation of Christianity, I find nothing of it in 
1 Cor. 3: 11, where Christ, in his mediatorial person or character simply, 
‘is presented. ‘That Paul’s acknowledged epistles have not run a parallel 
between Christ and the angels, is true enough ; but how are we to shew 
that Paul never could do this in one epistle, because he has not done it in 
another ? 

(7) ‘There is more pure and continuous argument in our epistle, than 
in those of Paul.’ 

' There is more pure and continuous argument in the epistle to the Ro- 
mans, than there is in the epistles to the Ephesians, Philippians, Colos- 
sians, and Thessalonians; but is this any proof, that Paul did not write 
the latter epistles? And must the tenor of all the epistles which any 
man writes, however diverse the occasion and the subject may be, al- 
ways be one and the same ἢ 

(8) ‘ Paul cites the Old Testament with great freedom, at one time fol- 
lowing the Septuagint, and at another, the Hebrew. Qur author keeps 
close to the Septuagint.’ 

The case is too strongly stated. It is not exactly correct, in either re- 
spect. But if it were, it does not follow, that in writing to those who had 
the Greek Scriptures in their own bands, and were habitually conversant 
with them, Paul would not keep closer than usual to the words of the an- 
cient oracles. It is altogether natural that he should do so ; see above in 
§ 27. No. 18. 


I now proceed to objections drawn from words and phrases. 


I. Objections drawn from peculiar phrases. 


(9) ‘ The following phrases are sut generis et mascime peculiares, 1 in our 
epistle ; 5) Wize διαφορώτερον ὁ ὁγομα χληφονομεῖν, εἶναι. εἰς πατέρα, δόξη στεφα- 
γοῦν, πεπουϑότα εἰναι, ἀρχὴν λαμβάνειν λαλήσαι, ἀρχιερεὺς τὴς ὁμολογίας, 
μαρτύριον τῶν λελαλημένων, παρ ὁησία τῆς ἐλπίδος, στοιχεῖα τῆς ἀρχῆς τῶν 
λόγων τοῦ ϑεοῦ διϊκνεῖσϑαι ὄχρι μερισμοῦ ψυχῆς TE καὶ πνεύματος, προσ- 
ἔρχεσϑαι Soo χάριτος, ἐξ ἀνϑρώπων. λαμβάνεσϑαι, περικεῖσϑαι ἅμαρ- 
τίαν, ἀφιέναι τὸν τῆς ἀρχῆς λόγον, καὶ ἐπὶ τὴν τελειότητα φέρεσϑαι, γεύσασ-- 
For δωρεᾶς ἐπουρανίου, μιμηταὶ τῶν διὰ πίστεως κληρονομούντων, ἄγκυρα 


bk OBJECTIONS BY SEYFFARTH. 215 


ἐλσείδος, προχειμένη ἐλπίς, ἵ ἱερεὺς εἰς τὸ , διηνεκές, ἐντολὴ Rea exataty: μετατι-- 
ϑεμένη ἱερωσύνη, ζωὴ ἀκατάλυτος, κεχωρισμένος ἀπὸ τῶν ἁμαρτωλῶν, δικαιώ.-. 
ματα λατρείας, περικεκαλυμμένος χφυσίῳ, στάσιν ἔχειν, παύεσϑαι προσφερο- 
μένην, διδαχαὶ ξέναι, and ϑυσία αἰνέσεως, p. 83.’ 

Admitting now that the same phraseology cannot be found in Paul’s 
epistles, is not the Greek of these phrases classic or Hellenistic? Is it 
not such as a writer might choose, without any uncommon peculiarities ? 
But without insisting on this, [ have only to remark, at present, that the 
same kind of argument which Seyffarth adduces, if it be valid, will prove 
any one of Paul’s epistles to be spurious, with equal force. I must refer 
the reader, for the illustration and proof of this, to 929 in the sequel. 


IL. Objections from the peculiar forms and juncture of words in our epistle. 


(10) ‘Our author makes a peculiarly frequent use of composite words. 
His epistle contains 534 words of this sort; while Paul, in his epistle to 
the Romans uses only 478, p. 91, 

Without following on in the steps of Seyffarth, in order to examine 
whether his enumeration is correct, I take it as he has presented it. I 
open my New Testament at the epistle to the Colossians accidentally, and 
proceed to count the composite words ; which amount, if I have made no 
mistakes, to 178; the number of pages is three. The epistle then aver- 
ages 59 composite words to a page. The epistle to the Hebrews, occu- 
pies 10 pages, and has, according to Seyffarth, 534 composite words, i. e. 
on an average 53 toa page. If it is spurious for this reason, @ fortiort the 
epistle to the Colossians must be counted spurious also. 

(11) ‘Our author is partial to the use of participles, and of the Gen. 
absolute. He employs 84 active participles, and 107 passive and middle 
ones, and seven cases of the Gen. absolute ; while in the epistle to the 
Romans, there are only 90 active participles, and 42 passive, and no cases 
of the Gen. absolute, p. 81. 

Allowing the enumeration of Seyffarth to be correct, the average num- 
ber of participles on each page will be for Hebrews, nineteen; for Ro- 
mans, ten. Put now this principle to the test, in some other epistles. If 
I have rightly counted, the epistle to the Colossians has active participles 
34, passive 40, pages three ; average number of participles to a page, 24. 
Ephesians has active participles 60, passive 24, pages four and a half; 
average to a page, 23. Of course, if our apistle is spurious because it 
employs so many as 19 participles to each page, then these epistles must 
be spurious which employ 23 or 24 to a page. 

And as to the Gen. absolute, the 2 Cor. (which has active participles 
97, passive 77, pages nine, average to a page 19, the same as in our epis- 
tle), has the Gen. absolute three times. Can any thing be more inconclu- 
sive, now, than such a species of reasoning ? 

(12) “ Our author has peculiar junctures “of words ; 6. g. ἔσχατον ἡμέρων, 
τὸ ἀμετάϑετον τῆς βουλῆς, κοινωγέω With the Gen. , διαφορώτερος παρά, 
ῥῆσαι πρός τινα, ἀνάστασις τῶν νεχρῶν, παϑήματα ϑανάτου, ἀγαγεῖν εἰς 
δόξαν, κρατῆσαι with the Acc., εὐαγγελίζω with the Acc., ἀδύνατον with 
the Inf. after it, αἵ πρότερον ἡμέραι, καταβάλλειν ϑεμέλιον, p. 81.’ 


216 § Q8. OBJECTIONS BY SEYFFARTH. 


Some of these phrases are Pauline ; 6. g. ἀνάστασις γνεχρῶν, Rom. 1: 4. 
15: 12, 21, 24. Phil. 3: 11. So εὐαγγελέζω with the Acc. Rom. 10: 5 bis, 
2 Cor. 11:7. Gal. 1:9. In regard to the others, if they prove any thing, 
they will prove too much; for the same kind of argument would show 
(as we shall hereafter see), that the first epistle to the Corinthians is spu- 
rious. The phrases in question are all either classic or Alexandrine 
Greek ; and how can it be shewn, then, that it was either impossible or 
improbable that Paul should employ them ? 


III. Objections drawn from the use of words employed in our epistle in a sense different 
from that which Paul attaches to them, 


(13) “ γἱὸς ϑεοῦ in our epistle designates the higher nature of Christ, 
and not the Messiah simply. In Paul it has the latter sense, p. 60 seq.’ 

Paul also uses it in the former sense, in Rom. 1: 3, 4. 8:3, 32, and 
probably in 2 Cor. 1:19. In our epistle it is used in the sense alleged 
by Seyffarth to be the exclusive one, only in 1: 2 and perhaps 7:5. In 
other cases it is employed in the usual sense of Messiah ; viz. in 1: 5 bis, 
8: 42214, 5: 5.8. 6:6, 7: 28.102 29. 

(14) ‘ Κληρονόμος, lord, possessor, is peculiar to our epistle, p. 63.’ 

ΝΟΣ Ξὸ.. Int Rom. 4:13.04. 8: 175, Gal. 3: 29) 42. Ὡς Mitoid 11 18 
used in the same way. Indeed the usage of κληρονόμος in this sense, is 
Pauline instead of anti-pauline. 

(15) ‘Our author uses ὑπόστασις in the sense of fundamentum, Heb. 1: 
3; Paul no where employs it in such a sense, p. 66.” 

In Heb. 1: 3, ὑπόστασις is unique. In 3:14. 11:1, ὑπόστασις means 
confidence ; so in Paul, 2 Cor. 9: 14, 11: 17. 

(16) “Ἔργον in the sense of beneficence, Heb. 6:10, is peculiar to our 
epistle, p. 76.’ 

The meaning attributed to ἔργον here, is deduced merely from the con- 
text, viz. from ἀγάπης which follows it. The sense of ἔργον itself here 
does not differ from that which it has, in Eph. 2: 10. Col. 1: 10. Tit. 2: 
14, specially 2 Cor. 9: 8. 1 Tim. 6:18. So also in Matt. 26: 10. Acts 
9: 90. 

(17) “Πηλίκος in our epistle (7:4) means quam insignis, how distin- 
guished ; Paul applies it only to magnitude, Gal. 6, 11, p. 77. 

These two instances are the only ones, in which πηλίκος occurs in the 
New Testament. 177]}ηλίκος properly signifies, of what magnitude. It might 
be applied either in a physical or moral sense. In Gal. 6: 11, it is applied 
in the former sense, (so also in the Septuagint, Zach. 2: 2); in Heb. 7: 
4 it is used in the latter sense; at least, it designates greatness of rank or 
condition. Can any thing be more natural than the derivation of this sec- 
ondary sense of the word, in such a case, from the primary one? 

(18) “Οικος, Heb. 8: 8, 10, is used in the sense of tota gens ; Paul does 
not employ it in this sense, p. 77.’ 

It is sufficient to reply, that both of these instances are not our author’s 
own words ; they are quotations from the Septuagint. As to the writer’s 
own use of οὔκος, he employs it in the usual sense, viz., household; see 


§ 28. OBJECTIONS BY SEYFFARTH. 217 


= 


Heb. 3: 2—6. 10: 21. 11: 7, and comp. 1 Cor. 1:16. 1 Tim. 3: 4. 5, 12, 
15. 5:4. 2 Tim. 1:16. 4: 19 etc.; also Acts 7: 10. 10: 2 etc. 

(19) ‘ ᾿Επισυναγωγή is peculiar to our epistle, p. 77. 

It is employed but once, Heb. 10: 25. Only once more is it found in 
all the New Testament, and that is in 2 Thess. 2: 1, in a sense like that 
in Heb. 10: 25. If any thing can be fairly deduced from this, it is in fa- 
vour of the Pauline origin of our epistle. 

(20) “ Κοσμικόν, in the sense of exornatum (Heb. 9:1), is peculiar. 
Paul uses κόσμιος and χεχοσμημένος, p. 78. 

The exegesis of this word is manifestly erroneous. See Heb. 9: 11, 24, 
12: 22, Rev. 21: 2. 

(21) ‘dsouadintw is used, Heb, 9: 4,to express the covering of vessels ; 
in 1 Tim, 2: 9, for the veiling of women, p. 79.’ 

Περικαλύπτω is not used in 1 Tim, 2:9, nor any where in Paul’s ac- 
knowledged epistles. It is used only in Mark 14:65. Luke 22: 64; 
and there, in the same sense as in Heb. 9: 4. 

(22) ‘ Συνεέδησις is used, in our epistle, in the sense of animus, mens ; 
by Paul, in the sense of conscience, paixd? 

So it is used in the sense of conscience, too, by our author in 13: 18, 
and probably 10: 22. In 10: 2, it means consciousness. Only in Heb. 9: 
9, 14 has it the sense of mens, animus ; which also it seems to have, in 2 
Cor. 5: 11, 

(23) “᾿Αναιρέω is used in the sense of abolishing, Heb. 10:9; Paul uses 
καταργέω, p. 80.’ 

᾿Αναιρέω is used but once; and then in a sense which is common in the 
Septuagint and in classic authors. Katagyéw is employed by our author 
(Heb, 2:14), and in the same sense in which Paul employs it; which 
sense is exclusively Pauline. Comp. Luke 13: 7, 

In regard to the words αἰών, τάξις, and ἡγούμενοι, on which Seyffarth 
also charges peculiarity of signification in our epistle, they have been al- 
ready examined above. 


iv. “Anaé& λεγόμενα of our epistle. 
P fr} Ρ 


Nearly one half of Seyffarth’s Essay is occupied with reckoning up 
words of this class, δὲ. 16—28. It is singular that he should bring into 
this computation words that occur in the quotations made from the Sep- 
tuagint; 6. g. ἑλέσσειν, παραπικρασμός, προσόχϑιζε, τροχιά, ὄρϑος, etc. ; as 
if these were chargeable, as peculiarities, upon the idiom of our epistle. 
Yet such is the ardour with which arguments of this nature have been 
urged by him, Schulz, and others, that the bounds of sober reflection are 
not unfrequently overleaped, and objections undistinguishingly pressed in- 
to service by these writers. 

I subjoin a catalogue of these ἅπαξ λεγόμενα, because I wish to put the 
reader in possession of all that is adduced to overthrow the Pauline origin 


of our epistle. The force of the argument I shall examine in a subse- 


quent section. : 
I remark here only, that by actual examination I find this whole class 


Q18 § 29. NATURE OF OBJECTIONS EXAMINED. 


of so called ἅπαξ λεγόμενα, (almost without exception), are words both of 
classical and of Septuagint or Alexandrine usage. Now the employment 
of words belonging to both these kinds of Greek, can mark nothing very 
peculiar in the style or choice of words adopted by our author, The in- 
stances alleged by Seyffarth are the following ; 5 

Chap. 1/4 Πολυμερῶς καὶ πολυτρόπως, ἀπαύγασμα, χαρακτήρ, μεγαλωσύνη, 
ἑλίσσειν. IL. Παραῤῥυεῖν, μισϑαποδοσία, συνεπιμαρτυρέω, βραχύ, παρα- 
πλησίως, ἱλάσκεσϑαι. 111. Π]έτοχος, ϑεράπων, παραπιχρασμός," προσοχ- 
ϑίζω.Σ IV. Ὑπόδειγμα, ἀφανής, τραχηλίζω, βοήϑεια, εὔκαιρος. Υ. Metgi- 
οπαϑεῖν, ἱκετηρέαι, αἴτιος, προσαγορευϑείς, γωϑρύς, αἰσϑητήρια, ἕξις. VI. 
Παραδειγματίξω, βοτάνη, ἐπιτυγχάνω governing the genitive, ἀντιλογία, 
ἀμετάϑετος. VII. Κοπή, ἀπάτωρ, ἀμήτωρ, ἀγενεαλόγητος, ἀφωμοιωμένος, 
διηγνεχές, ἀκροϑένια, πατριάρχης, ἱερατεία, 'συναντάω, ἀϑέτησις, ἀπαράβατος, 
παντελὲς, ἀμίαντος. VIII. Ἔπηξε, δῶρα, ἀναφέρω, χ χοηματίζω, νομοϑετεῖν, 
διατιϑέναι, ἵλεως eivar*, παλαιοῦν, ἀφανισμός. ΙΧ. ᾿Εγκαινίζομαι, ῥαντίζω, 
αἱματεχχυσία, ἀντίτυπος, συντέλεια τῶν αἰώνων. X. ᾿Ανώτερον, πρόσφατος, 
ἀκλινής, παροξυσμός, ἑκουσίως, φόβερος, ἐνυβρίζειν, ἄϑλησις, ϑεατρίζειν, 0 ογει-- 
δισμύς, g χρονίζειν. ΧΙ. Εὐαρεστεῖν, ἄστρα, ἀναρέϑμητος, παρεπίδημος, τ τς 
μηνον, ἀστεῖος διάταγμα, συγκακουχεῖν, κατάσκοπος, παρεμβόλη, τυμπανίξειν, 
καταγωνίζεσϑαι, μελώπη, δέρμα, προβλέπομαι. ΧΗ. Τοιγαροῦν, γέφος, 
ἀφορῶντες, ἀναλογίζομαι, κάμνειν, ἀντικαϑιστάναι, ἐχλανϑάνειν, ὀλιγωρεῖν, 
»νόϑος, παριέναι, τροχιάΣ, ὄρϑος" > ἐνοχλεῖν, πρωτοτοκία, μετέπειται, ψηλαφᾶν, 
γνόφος, διαστέλλομαι, φαντασία, ἔντρομος, ἔχφοβος, πανήγυρις, velo, ἀσά- 
λευτος, καταναλίσχκω. XII. Bondoc, ἡγούμενος, ἀναϑεωρέω, εὐποιία, ἀλυ-- 
σιτελής. 

The whole number is 118; from which are to be subtracted those six 
marked with an asterisk, as they are quoted from the Septuagint, and be- 
long not to our author. The amount then of ἅπαξ λεγόμενα is 112. And 
they are collected, too, with an unsparing hand; 6. g. ἀπάτωρ, ἀμήτωρ, 
ἀγενεαλόγητος, τρίμηνον, ἔντρομος, ἕκφοβος, and many other words like 
these, where it is difficult to see how the author of our epistle could avoid 
choosing the very terms which he has employed, if we consult the con- 
nection in which they stand. 

This list appears, indeed, quite large and formidable to any one, who 
has not put to the test the principle of reasoning to which it must appeal, 
if any weight be allowed it in the seale of evident against our epistle. 
That principle 1 shall bring to the test, by subjecting one of Paul’s ac- 
knowledged epistles to an examination in the same way, and on the same 
grounds which Seyffarth, Schulz, and others, have thought proper to 
adopt in the examination of our epistle. 


§ 29. Objections made against the genuineness of our epistle, compared with 
those which may be made against the first epistle to the Corinthians. 


It often struck me, while engaged in the toilsome and protracted labour 
of examining the preceding objections made against the Pauline origin of 
our epistle by Schulz and Seyfiarth, that the only just method of weighing 
the whole force of the arguments which they deduce from peculiarities of 


§ 29. NATURE OF OBJECTIONS EXAMINED. 219 


phraseology and the choice of words by our author, would be to carry the 
same principles of reasoning along with us to the examination of one of 
Paul’s acknowledged epistles, and see whether as great a list of expressions 
and words foreign to the other acknowledged epistles of Paul might not 
be found, as in the epistle to the Hebrews. This task, so far as | know, 
has never yet been performed by any critic. And yet such an experi- 
ment seems to be obvious and necessary, in order that we may judge with 
any confidence respecting the alleged singularities of our epistle. I have 
gone through with the appalling labour of performing such a work ; and 
I shall now present the reader with the results of this undertaking. 

In making choice of an epistle among the acknowledged writings of 
Paul, I found some difficulty. I chose, at last, the first epistle to the Co- 
rinthians ; because, like that to the Hebrews, it presents several topics 
that are peculiar to itself. In this respect it has more resemblance to our 
epistle, than any other of Paul’s acknowledged letters. Consequently a 
comparison of its peculiarities‘of phrase and diction with the other epis- 
tles of Paul, would be more like a comparison of our epistle with these, 
and would be more just than a similar comparison of any other of Paul’s 
epistles. 

I divide the peculiarities of the first epistle to the Corinthians, into two 
great classes. 


I. Phraseology peculiar to this epistle and found no where in the other acknowledged 
writings of Paul. 


1 Cor. 1. 1 ᾿“Ἡγιασμένοι, as a title of Christians, used no where else by 
Paul. 2 ᾿Επικαλούμενοι τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ Κυρίου 1. X. as a periphrasis for the 
idea of Christians. 5 Ἔν παντὶ ἐπλουτίσϑητε ἐν αὐτῷ. 9 Εἰς κοινωνίαν 
τοῦ υἱοῦ. 10 παρακαλῶ ὑμᾶς διὰ τοῦ ὀνόματος τοῦ Κυρίου 1. X...... Paul 
says, διὰ I. Χριστοῦ, Rom. 15: 30.—t0 αὐτὸ λέγητε, be in unison—xutygtio— 
μένοι ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ vot. 13 Πεμέρισταιν ὃ Χριστός; is Christ divided? ....- 
Paul uses μὲρ ἐζ ὦ, in the sense of impart, 6. 5. Rom. 12:3. 2 Cor. 10: 
13. 16 “Λοιπὸν οὐκ οἶδα, Paul commonly uses τὸ λοιπόν, Eph. 6: 10. 
Phil. 3:1. 4:8. 2 Thess. 3:1. 17 Σοφίᾳ λόγου, .... Paul uses λόγον 
σοφίας, Col. 2: 393. κενωϑῇ ὃ σταυρός. 18 Ὃ λόγος ὃ τοῦ σταυροῦ. 21 
Mogias τοῦ κηρύγματος. 25 ΠΠωρὸν τοῦ ϑεοῦ. 27 ΜΙωρὸν τοῦ κόσμου. 
95 ᾿Ασϑενὲς τοῦ ϑεοῦ. 27 ᾿Ασϑενὴῆ τοῦ κόσμου. 2G Βλέπετε τήν κλῆσιν--- 
σοφοὶ κατὰ σάρκα---δυνατοΐ, for those in an elevated station. 30 Ὃς éyevy- 
In ἡμῖν σοφία. .... δικαιοσύνη τε καὶ ἁγιασμὸς καὶ ἀπολύτρωσις. 

II. 1 ὑπεροχὴν λόγου.---τὸ μαρτύριον τοῦ ϑεοῦ. 2 Οὐ γὰρ ἔκρινά τι εἰδέναι, 
I determined not to make known. 4 Πευιϑοὶ σοφίας λόγοι--ἀπόδειξις πνεύματος 
καὶ δυνάμεως. 5 Σοφίᾳ ἀνθρώπων, human subtlety. G Σοφία τοῦ αἰῶνος 
tovtov,......in 1 Cor. copia is used seventeen times, in the epistle to the 
Romans only once, and that in a quotation, Rom. 11:33. 7 Προώριξεν 
ere πρὸ τῶν αἰώνων. 8. Aoxortes τοῦ αἰῶνος τοὐτου---πύριος τῆς δόξης. 
10 ᾿“ποκαλύπτειν διὰ τοῦ πνεύματος---πνεῦμα ἐρευνᾷ---τὰ βαϑῆ τοῦ ϑεοῦ. 13 
Abauxtoig ἀνθρωπίνης σοφίας λύγοις---διδακτοῖς πνεύματος---πνευματικοῖς 
πνευματικὰ συγκρίνοντες. 14 Puxixog ἄνϑρωπος--πνευματικῶς ἀνακρίνεται. 

III. 1 Σαρκικοῖς, as applied to persons. 3 Κατὰ ἄνθρωπον περιπατεῖτε. 


220 ᾧ 99, NATURE OF OBJECTIONS EXAMINED. 


6 ᾿Εγὼ ἐφύτευσα, applied to the labour of a religious ΡΝ 
ἐπότισε, Apollos supplied with water, applied to the same—#e0¢ ηὔξανε, made 
to increase (Hiphil of the Hebrews), no where employed in this sense by 
Paul in his other epistles, nor appropriated to designate such a shade of 
thought. 8 Ajwetar κατὰ τὸν ἴδιον xonoy..... Paul says, χατὰ τὰ ἔργα, 6. 8. 
Rom. 2: 6. 2Cor. 11 : 15. 2 Tim. 4: 14. 9 Σινεργοὶ ϑεοῖ----Θεοῦ γεώργιον--- 
ϑεοῦ οἰκοδομή. 10 Σοφὸς ἀρχιτέκτων. 11 Θεμέλιον τέϑεικα. 12 ᾿“ποικο-- 
δομεῖν χφυσὺν, ἄργυρον, κι τ. Δ. 18 Ἢ ἡμέρα δηλώσει---ἐν πυρὶ ἀποκαλύπ-- 
τεται--τὸ πῦρ δοκιμάσει. 14 Ahodov λαμβάνειν. 15 “Loy ov κατακαΐειν---- 
σωϑήναι ὡς διὰ πυρός. 18 Πωρὸς γίνεσϑαι. 21 Ey ἀνϑρώποις καυχῦσ-- 
Por 23 “Tysic Χριστοῦ, Χριστὸς ϑεοῦ, ye are Christ’s, Christ is God's. 
ν1 “γὙπηρέτης Χριστοῦ---οἰκόνομοι μυστηρίων. 3 Τὶς ἐλαχιστὸν εἶναι---- 
ἡμέρα, day ty of trial, trial. 4 ᾿μμαυτῷ συνειδεῖν. 5 Ποὸ καιροῦ κρίνειν-- 
βουλαὶ τῶν καρδιῶν -- ἔ ἔπαινος γίνεται τινί. 6 Ἰϊετασχηματίζειν εἰς, to trans- 
Ser figuratively—to μὴ ὑπέρ ὃ γέγραπται φρονεῖν, not to think: of one’s self 
more highly than the Scriptures allow ; Paul uses παρ O.... φρονεῖν in 
such a case, Rom. 12: 3, and employs φρονεῖν ὑπέρ in the sense of having 
a regard for, Phil, 1:7. 4: 10.---ΘφΦυσιοῦν tmég.....n0td. 7 Διακρίνειν 
twa, to make one to differ. 8 Ἱεχορεσμένοι εἶναι---βασιλεύειν, to be in α 
happy or prosperous state. 9 ᾿Εσχάτους ἀποδεῖξαι-- -ϑέατρον γένεσϑαι. 10 
Μωροὶ διὰ Χριστόν---φρόνιμοι ἐν Χριστῷ.---ἰσχυροί applied to persons—iy— 
dofor in the same manner. 19 Περικαϑάρματα τοῦ κόσμου-- πάντων περί- 
ψημα---ἕως ἄρτι. 14 ᾿Εντρέπων, act. voice, putting to’ shame ; no where 
else, except with a passive meaning. 15 Παιδαγωγοὶ ἐν Χριστῷ---πατέρες 
[ἐν Χριστῷ |—ev Χριστῶ Satie γεννᾶν. 17 “Odovc..... τὰς ἐν Χριστῷ, Chris- 
tian doctrines. 19 ᾿Εὰν ὃ Κύριος ϑελήσῃ. 20 Βασιλεία τοῦ ϑεοῦ..... οὐ 
εν λόγῳ. pee ey δυνάμει. 21 Ἔν ῥάβδῳ ἐλϑεῖν. 
γαΐκια «.. «ον ἔχειν, to cohabit with a woman. 2 
Trey 9civ, to be sorrowful; Pauly to make sorrowful, 2 Cor. 12:21. 3 
> Anwy ἐν σώματι, (Paul, ἀπεῖναι ἐν σαρκί, Col. 2: 5.)--παρὼν τῷ πνεύματι. 
4 Συναχϑέντων ὑμῶν, καὶ τοῦ ἐμοῦ πνεύματος, is altogether unique, in the 
shade of idea. 5 Etc Ole P-goy τῆς σαρκὸς, ἵνα τὸ πνεῦμα, σωϑῆ, is altogeth- 
er peculiar. 7 “ExxaPuigew..... ξύμην---τὸ 7 πάσχα ἡμῶν (Χριστὸς) δρύθης 
8 ἱἙορτάζειν ἐν ζύμῃ παλαιᾷ--- ζύμη κακέας καὶ πονηρίας---ἀζύμοις εἰλικρινεί-- 
ας καὶ ἀληθείας. 10 Πόρνοι τοῦ κόσμου τούτου---ἐκ τοῦ χύσμου ἐξελϑεῖν, to 
withdraw entirely from converse with men. 12 Τοὺς ἔσω, those within the 
church. 

Vi. 1 πρᾶγμα ἔχειν, to have ground for @ suit at law. 2 Οἱ ἅγιοι τὸν 
κύσμον χρινοῦσι---ανάξιοι κριτηρίων, 3° ayy κρινοῦμεν, altogether Sut 
generis. 4 Καϑέίζειν, to make to sit as judges. 5 Πρὸς ἐντροπὴν λέγω, also 
in 15: 84.---διακρῖναι ἀνὰ μέσον. 6 Κρίνεται μετά, goes to law with—&nio— 
toc, used eleven times in this epistle, and not once in Romans, Colossians, 
Galatians, Ephesians, Thessalonians, Phi os tctleaiey 2 Timothy. 7 Kotua- 
τα, law-swits—umooregéouett, io suffer one’s self to be defrauded—amooteoéen, 
lo defraud. 9 ἄδικοι, for Heb. ἘΣΘ Ἢ . Paul uses the word but once, 
and then in the singular number, tom. 3:5, and in quite a different way! 
11 Δικαιωϑῆναι ἐν ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ. 12 Πάντα μοι ἕξεστι--- συμφέρει, five 
times in this epistle, and no where else in all of Paul’s acknowledged 
epistles, except fwice in 2 Οοι.---ἐξουσιάζεσϑαι ὑπό τινος. 15 Πέλη Xovo- 


§ 29. NATURE OF OBJECTIONS EXAMINED. 99 | 


τοῦ---πόρνης μέλη. 16 Κολλώμενος Κυρίῳ---κολλώμενος τῇ πόρνῃ. 20 
᾿Αχοράζεσϑαι τιμῆς---δοξάζειν ἐν τῷ σώματι. 

VII. 1 ΓΤυναικὸς ἅπτεσϑαι, to cohabit with. 2 Ἔχειν γυναῖκα, lo marry 

or possess a wife. 5 Eni τὸ αὐτὸ ἦτε, ye may come together. 14 “Αγιάζω, in 
a sense sui generis—axcFugtos, in a sense peculiar ; ; SO also ἅγιος, which 
follows. 19 HW περιτομὴ ovdsy..... Paul says, οὔτε περιτομή τι ἰσχύει, Gal. 
5: 6. 6: 15.--- ἀκροβϑυστία οὐδὲν ἐστι---τήρησις ἐντολῶν ..... Paul says, 
ὑπακοὴ πίστεως, Rom. 1 ONSE 10: 90; or ὑπακοή simply, Rom. 5:19. 6:16. 
15:18. 16:19; or he uses Scrat! Rom. 6:12. 6:17. 10:16, et saepe. 
20 “Κλῆσις, condition in life, rank ; no where so employed by Paul. 21 
My σοι μελέτω, δὲ not silictua 3 δ λον χφῆσαι, prefer. 95 Επιταγὴν ἔχειν 
-“ἀλεημένος ὑπὸ Kuotov..... Paul uses ἠλεήϑην simply, Rom. 11: 30. 
2 Cor. 4:1. 1 Tim. 1: 18,16. 26 Καλὸν ἀνθρώπῳ ...-.. Paul uses καλόν 
simply, in the same sense, 6. g. Rom. 14: 21. Gal. 4:18. 29 To λοιπόν, 
hereafter, for the Suture. 91 Χρᾶσϑαι τῷ κόσμῳ---τὸ σχῆμα τοῦ κόσμου. 
32 Meguuvgy τὰ TOU Κυρίου. 33 Meouurtey τὰ τοῦ κόσμου. .... Paul uses 
μεριμνᾷν τὰ περί. 84 Ayia εἶναι ’ σώματι καὶ πνεύματι. 35 Πρὸς τὸ συμφέ- 
oor, for the profit. 37 ᾿Ανάγκην ἔχειν. 40 Ζοκεῖν πνεῦμα S208 3 ἔχειν, truly 
unique, in the epistles. 
WV EER er Τγνῶσιν ἕχειν. 4 Οὐδὲν εἶναι ἐν κόσμῳ---οὐδεὶς ἕτερος. 6 “μὴν 
εἷς ϑεὸς, ὃ πατήρ, x. τ}. The whole verse is unique. Συνείδησις, con- 
scientious scruples. 12 “Φμαρτάνειν εἰς, to sin against—tintew συνείδησιν. 
13 Βρῶμα σχανδαλίζει....... Paul, διὰ A τα λυπεῖσϑαι, Rom. 14: 15. 

IX. 1 To ἔργον wou....év Κυρίῳ. 2. "Ἄλλοις ...... Yo... ἀπόσ- 
τολος....... Paul uses the gen. ἢ ἐθνῶν» ἀπόστολος, Rom. 11 : 13; ἀπόστο-- 
λοι ἐκκλησιῶν, 2 Cor. ὃ : 93. ὑμῶν ἀπόστολος, Phil. 9: 5 cpoeyic τῆς 
ἀποστολῆς. 5 Γυναῖκα περιάύγειν---7, 13 ᾿Εσϑέειν ἐκ, to eat of ..... Paul 
uses simply the accusative, 6. δ. Rom. 14:2. 2Thess.3:12. 11 Σπείρειν 

πνευματικά---ϑερίζειν σαρκικά, to have one’s temporal wants supplied. 12 
᾿Εξουσὶα, property. 16 “Aveyun..... ἐπίκειταί, wor..... Paul, ἐξ ἀνάγκης 
Ω Cor.9:73 zat? ἀνάγκην, “Pbilern: v.14. 17 Oixovoutay πιστευϑῆναι. 
19’ Ελεύϑερος éx..... Paul uses ἐλεύϑερος ἀπό, Rom. 7:3. 20 Kegdaiver, 
to win over.....in a different sense, Phil. 3:8. 22 Τίνεσϑαν τοῖς πασὶ 
τὰ πάντα. 24 Βραβεῖον λαμβάνειν. 25 Dugtog..... ἄφϑαρτος στέφανος. 
26 4ξρα δέρειν. 

X. 1, 2. The whole of the description presented in these two verses is 
sui generis, and found no where in Paul. 3 Βρῶμα πνευματικόν---πόμα 
πνευματικόν. 4 Πνευματικῆς πέτρας---ἀπὰ specially the idea of the whole 
phrase, πνευματικῆς ἀκολουϑούσης πέτρας. So also ἔπιγον é..... Paul 
uses πιεῖν (2 aor.) with the accusative, Rom. 14:21. 11 Τύποι συμβαί-- 
ysw..... Paul, τύπος simply, Rom. 5:14; or γένεσϑαι τύπος, 1 Thess. 
1: 7. 1 Tim. 4: 19-- -τὰ τέλη τῶν ciovoy..... Paul, ἔσχαται ἡμέραι, 2 Tim. 
ἘΝ te a kes} Πειρασμὸς ἀνϑρώπινος εἴληφε, singular both as to the verb and ad- 
jective, joined with TELQUT HOS. 15 "We φρονίμοις λέγω. 10 ποτήριον. τῆς 
εὐλογίας--- κοινωνία αἵματος---χοινωνία σώματος. 17 Εἷς ἄρτος....-. εἶναι, 
said of Christians communing at the Lord’s table. 18 ᾿Ισραὴλ κατὰ σάρκα 
—xowwvot ϑυσιαστηρίου. 19 Τί οὖν φημι; 90 “Ἰαιμονίοις ϑύειν----κοινω-- 
γοὺς δαιμονίων γίνεσϑαι. 21 Ποτήριον δαιμονίων---τράπεζα δαιμονίων. 


222 ᾧ 29. NATURE OF OBJECTIONS EXAMINED. 


27 Χαλέω, in the sense tof inviting to a meal. 32 ᾿Απρόσχοποι, with the 
dative after it—aavta πᾶσιν ἀρέσκειν. 

X15 2 Παραδύσεις κατέχειν. 3 Θέλω δὲ ὑμᾶς εἰδέναι--παντὸς ἀνδρὸς κεφαλὴ 
Χριστός, κεφαλὴ Χριστοῦ ϑεός. 4 Κατὰ κεφαλῆς ἔχειν, to cover the head. 5 
Καταισχύνειν, to dishonor,.... Paul, to disappoint, Rom. 5: 5.9: 33. 10: 11. 
---τὸ αὐτὸ τῇ» the same thing as, i. e. αὐτό with the dative after it. Am ᾿Ανὴρ 
ἐνννον εἰκὼν καὶ δόξα ϑεοῦ--- γυνὴ δόξα ἀνδρός. 9 Οὐ ἀνὴρ ἐχ 'χυναικὸς 
oy Te ee) ‘E&ovate, veil or token of power—ayyehou, spies. 12 τῇ; ἀνὴρ 
διὰ τὴς γυναικός. 14 Θύσις διδάσκει. 17 Συνέρχεσϑαι εἰς τὸ κρεῖττον ...-. 
εἷς τὸ ἧττον. 20 Κυριακὸν δεῖπνον. 23 Παραλαβεῖν ἀπό... -- Paul uses 
παραλαβεῖν 1 παρά, Gal. 1:12. 2 Thess. 3:6, 24 To σῶμα ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν κλώμε-- 
γον. 25 Meta τὸ δειπνῆσαι ...... Paul no where uses μετά before the Inf. 
mode preceded by τό.--ἡ χαιγνὴ διαϑήκη ἐν τῷ ἐμῷ αἵματι. 27 “Evoxos 
ἔσται TOU σώματος καὶ τοῦ αἴμανος τοῦ κυρίουι 29 Κρίμα ἐσϑίειν χαὶ πίνειν 
τινί-- -διακρίνειν τό σῶμα τοῦ κυρίου. 30 ᾿“σϑενεῖς, 5δἱοζῖῃ---ἰκανοΐ, many 

...- Paul uses it in the sense of able, sufficient, 2 Cor. 2: 6,16. 3:5. 2 
Tim. 2:2. 31 Avaxgiver, to examine. 34 Ζιατάσσομαι, to set in order, 
arrange..... Paul uses it for command, Tit. 1: 5. 

XIE. 5. Ἔν: πνεύματι ϑεοῦ λαλεῖν. --λέγειν ἀγάϑεμα ᾿Τησοῦν---εἰπεῖν κύριον 
᾿Ιησοῦν. 6 ᾿Ενεργεῖν τὰ πάντα ἐν πᾶσι...... . Paul, ἐνεργεῖν τὰ πάντα, Eph. 
1:11. 7 Φανέρωσις τοῦ πνεύματος. 10 “]Πακρίσεις, powers of distinguish- 
ing......Paul in a different sense, Rom. 14: 1—yévn, kinds...... Paul 
uses γένος for descent, lineage, Phil. 3:5. 13 Hig ἕν σῶμα βαπτισϑῆναι--- 
εἰς ἕν πνεῦμα TotITIHVOL..... Paul uses ποτέζω no where, except in a 
quotation from the Old Testment, Rom. 12:20. Vs. 15—17. Where is 
apy representation like this, in all the Pauline epistles? Paul introduces 
the same general image, in Rom. 12: 4, 5, as is found in 1 Cor. [a pe 
14; but he does not pursue it into detail. 23 Τιμὴν περιτιϑέναι. 24 
“ιδόναι tyjy..... Paul, ἀποδιδόναι τιμήν, Rom. 2:7 —t0 αὐτὸ μεριμνᾷν. 
26 Meéhos no ΟΣ ee used absolutely, without any dative fol- 
lowing it..... Paul employs the dative after it, Phil. 2:17, 18. 27 “Ex 
μέρους, Paul uses ἀπὸ μέρους, Rom. 11:25. 15:15, 24. 2 Cor. 1:13. 2:5. 
28 Τιϑέναι ἐν τὴ ἐκκλησίᾳ, to constitute officers in the church. 23 Where 
else are such officers in the church mentioned, as ἀντιλήψεις, κυβερνήσεις, 
δυνάμεις 3 

XUL 1 Τλῶσσαι ἀγγέλων. 2 ἰδεῖν μυστήριον---ὁρὴ μεϑιστάνειν. 3 
ψΨωμίζειν τὰ ὑπάρχοντα. 6 Στέγειν, to cover over, 8 Τλῶσσαι παύσονται, 
the idea of speaking in a variely of languages, is not found attached to 
γλῶσσα, in any of the Pauline epistles, 12 Bhensw du’ éoomtgov..... ἕν 
OILY UOTL. ++ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον--- γινώσκειν ἐχ μέρους. 

XIV. 2 πνεύματι λαλεῖν μυστήρια. 3 .]αλεῖν οἰκοδομήν οὐ παράκλησιν .... 
παραμυϑίαν. ὃ Οἰκοδομὴν λαβεῖν. 6 Acdsiv ἐν ἀποκαλύψει κ᾿ τ... 7 Φωνὴν 
διδόναι---διαστολὴν διδόναι. 9 Hic αἔρα λαλεῖν. 10 Τυχχάνω, to happen, 
to. be.s “ἀντι Paul am ithe, sense of oblaining, χα Ὁ» LAL “ύναμις, 
force of; in the sense of meaning —Eivou βάρβαρός τινι. 14, 15 Προσεύχεσ-. 
Fav γλώσσῃ ἘΠ SEEDEUIOEL los 0's γοΐ---ψάλλειν πνεύματι... νοΐ, 10 Εὐ- 
λογεῖν τῷ πνεύματι. 19 Δαλεῖν iia voos. 20 Mudia γίνεσϑαν ταῖς φρεσί 
---ταῖς φρεσὶ τέλειοι γίνεσθαι. Eig σημεῖον styl... . Paul, σημεῖόν ἐσ- 
τι, Ὁ Thess. 5: 17. 27 Kata ΠΩΣ ἢ) τρεῖς. 92 Πνεύματα προφητῶν προ- 
φήταις ὑποτάσσεται. 33  ἠχαταστασίας ϑεύός. 


§ 29. NATURE OF OBJECTIONS EXAMINED. 225 


XV. 1 Aes ow [εὐαγγελίου] σώξεσϑε. 3 Ἔν πρώτοις, iret asi. Paul! 
πρῶτος, Rom. 10:19. 8 Loyatoy πάντων. 10 Εἰμὲ o εἰμι. 14 κενὸν 
κήρυγμα, κεγὴ πίστις. 15 Pevdoucgrugss tov Seov. 17 Εἶναι ἐν ἅμαρ- 
tous. 20 Amcugyn τῶν πεκοιμημένων. 21 Δι᾿ ἀνθρώπου ὃ ϑάνατος.. ... 
Paul, διὰ τῆς ἁμαρτίας ὃ ϑάνατος, Rom. ὅ : 19. δι᾿ ἀνθρώπου ἀνάστα- 
σις vexoay. Vs. 24—28, a passage altogether sui generis. 29 Βαπτιζόμε- 
VOL ὑπὲρ τῶν νεχρῶν. 88 Σῶμα διδόναι. 40 Σῶμα ἐπίγειον. 42 Σπείρεσ-- 
Tur ἐν φϑορᾷ---ἐ se hai ev ἀφϑαρσίᾳ---σπείρεσϑαι ἕν ἀτιμέᾳ---ἐγείρεσϑαι 
ἐν δόξῃ Toh, Ad “Σῶμα ψυχικόν---σῶμα mys εὐματικόν. 47 Ὃ δεύτερος ἄν-- 
ϑρωπος, ὃ 0 κύριος ἐξ οὐρανοῦ. 49 Φορεῖν εἰκόνα. 50 Σὰρξ καὶ αἷμα, wT. A. 
51 Δηυστήριον λέγειν. .... Paul, μυστήριον λαλεῖν, Col. 4: 8. 52 ᾿Εσχάτη 
σάλπιγξ. 53 Ae; γὰρ τὸ φϑαρτὸν, κ᾿ τ᾿ Δ. 56 Κέντρον ϑανάτου, 7 ἀμαρ-- 
τία---δύναμις ἃ ἁμαρτίας, ὃ γόμος. 57 Διδόναι γἴκος. 

XVI. 2 Mio σαββάτων--τιϑέναι mag ἑαυτῷ. 7 Ἔν παρόδῳ ἰδεῖν. 9 
Θύρα ἀνέῳγε μεγάλη καὶ ἐνεργής. 92. Ἤτω ἀνάϑεμα, μαρὰν ἀϑά. 34 Ἢ 
ἀγάπη μου μετά, κι τ. 2. The whole closing salutation is sut generis. 

Such is the almost incredible mass of peculiar phraseology, i in the first 
epistle to the Corinthians. It is possible, that there may be instances 
among so many, where I may, through the tedium of such an examina- 
tion, have overlooked some phrase of the same kind in Paul’s other epis- 
tles. If this be so, the student, who has in his hands a Greek Concord- 
ance, will be able easily to detect it. In the mean time, I venture to af- 
firm with entire confidence, (having repeated my investigations a second 
time), that the number of such mistakes, at most, is not sufficient 
to affect in any degree, the nature of the argument, or the force of the 
appeal. I remark only, that where I have appealed to Paul, as not hav- 
ing employed a particular word or phrase, or as not using it in a like 
sense, [ mean, of course, that Paul has not done this, in his other acknowl- 
edged epistles. 

If any one is disposed to object to this array of phrases sui generis in 
the first epistle to the Corinthians, and to aver that many of them are 
nearly like those used by Paul, and that others are occasioned by the 
peculiarity of the subjects of which the writer treats, and that in general 
they are collected with an unsparing hand; I have only to reply, that in 
all respects they are as fairly and as sparingly collected as those brought 
forward by Schulz and Seyffarth. For the correctness of this, I make 
the appeal to every unprejudiced man, who has read attentively and criti- 
cally the essays of these authors, in which they have brought forward 
their objections against the genuineness of our epistle. 

As a counter-part for the appalling list of 118 ἅπαξ λεγόμενα in the 
epistle to the Hebrews, which Seyffarth has presented, I offer, 


Il. The ἅπαξ λεγόμενα in the first epistle to the Corinthians. 


“Ay aos, ἀγενής, ἀγνωσία, ἀγοράζω, ἀδάπανος, ἄδηλος, ἀδήλως, “Ons, ἄζυ-- 
μος, αἴνιγμα, ἀχκατακάλυπτος, ἀκολουϑέω, ἀκρασία, ἄκων, ἀλαλάζω, na 
γος, ἀμετακίνητος, ἀμπελών, ἀνά, ἀγακρίνω, ἀγάμνησις, ἀνάξιος, ἀναξίως 
ἀνδρίζομαι, ἀντίληψις, ἀπάγω, o ἀπελεύϑερος, ἀπερισπάστως, ἀπόδειξις, ἀπο-- 


224 bee NATURB OF OBJECTIONS EXAMINED. 


hover, ἀ ἀποφέρω, ἄργυρος, ἀροτριῶν, ἅρπαξ , ἄῤῥωστος, ἀρχιτέκτων, ἀσϑενέσ-- 
τερος, ἀστήρ, ἀστατέω, ἀσχημογέω, Dh eat dy ἄτιμος, KTOMOS, αὐλέω, αὐλός, 
αὔριον, ἄφωγος, ἄψυχος. 

Boozos, βιωτικός, γάλα, γεώργιον, γογγύζω, γραμματεύς, γυμνητεύομαι, 
δειπγέω, δεῖπνον, διαίρεσις, δίδακτος, διερμενευτής, διερμεγεύω, διόπερ, δουλα- 
γωγέω, δράσσομαι, ἐγκοπή, ἐγκρατεύομαι, εἰδωλεῖον, εἰδωλόϑυτον, εἰσακούω, 
ἔκβασις, ἐκγαμίζω, ἐεβέχαμίεις ἐθρήφ; ἐκπειράζω, ἔχτρωμα, ἐλεεινός, ἐνέργημα, 
ἕν)" ομος, ἕγοχος, ἐντροπή, é ξαίρω, ἑ ξεγείρω, ἔξεστι, ἐ ἐξουσιάζω, ἑορτάξω, ἐπαι-- 
VEO), ἐπιβάλλω, ἐπιϑανάτιος, ἐπιϑυμητής, ἐπισπάομαι, ἐπιτοαυτό, ἑρμηνεία, 
ἔσοπτρον, ἑτερόγλωσσοι, εὐγενής, εὐκαιρέω ,εὐπρόσεδρος, εὔσημος, εὐσχημοσύγη, 

εὐσχήμων, ἠγέω, the form ἤτω rae εἰμί, ϑάπτω, ϑέατρον, ϑηριομαχέω, 
va, i ἴαμα, ἰσχυρότερος, κάϑαρμα, καίω, καλάμη, κατακαίω, κατακαλύπτομαι, 
κατάκειμαι, καταστρώννυμι, καταχράομαι, κείρω, κέντρον, κυϑάρα, κιϑαρίζω, 
κινδυνεύω, κλάω, κλάζω, κόκκος, κομή, κομάῳ, κορέγγυμι, χρεῖσσον in the sense 
of the adverb better 7 : 38, κριτήριον, κτῆνος, κυβέρνησις, κύμβαλ ov, κυρίακος. 

«Ἱιϑάζω, λογία, λοιδορέω, λοίδορος, λύσις, μαίνομαι, μάκελλον, μακαριώτε- 
θος, μαλακύς, μαρὰν ἀϑά, μέϑυσος, μέλει, μετέχω, μηνύω, μοιχός, μολύνω, 
μύριοι, μωρία, γή, vinos, νηπιάζω, ξυράω, ὁλοϑρευτής, ὅλως, ὁμιλία, ὁσάκις, 
ὄσφρησις, οὐαί, οὐδέποτε, οὐδέπω, οὐϑέν, οὔπω, ὄφελος, παιδίον, παίξω, 
πανταχοῦ, παραγένομαι, παραμένω, παραμυϑία, πάροδος, “παροξύνομαι, 
πάσχα, πειϑύς, περιάγω, περιβόλαιον, περικάϑαρμα, περισσότερον, σπεριτί-- 
ϑημι, περίψη μα, περπερεύομαι, πνευματικῶς, ποιμαίνω, ποίμνη), πόμα, πορ-- 
γεύω, ποργή, ποτήριον, προσεδρεύω, προσκυγέω, προφητεύίω, πτηνόν, πυκτεύω, 
πωλέω, ῥάβδος, umn, σαλπίξω, σελήνη, σῖτος, στάδιος » συγγνώμη, συγκεράν-- 
γυμι, συζητητής, συμμερίζομαι, σύμφωνος, συνέρχομαι; συνάγω, συνειδέω, 
συνήϑεια, συστέλλω, σχολάζω, τάγμα, τήρησις, τοίνυν, τύπτω, ὑπέρανμος, 
ὑπηρέτης, ὑπωπιάζω, φιλόνεικος, φρήν, φυτεύω, χαλκός, χοϊκός, χόρτος, χρησ-- 
τεύομαι, ψευδομάρτυρ, ψυχικός, ὡσπερεί. In the whole, 230 words. 

In order now to estimate the comparative force of the argument from 
these ἅπαξ λεγόμενα, we must take into the account the comparative 
length of the first epistle to the Corinthians and of our epistle. In the 
Bible lying before me, the former occupies thirteen pages, the latter ten ; 
i.e. the former in respect to length, is to the latter, as thirteen to ten. 
Now in the epistle to the Hebrews, are found 118 ἅπαξ λεγόμενα, accord- 
ing to the reckoning of Seyffarth; in the epistle to the Corinthians, if I 
have reckoned rightly, (I have repeated, a second time, the whole exam- 
ination), there are 230. Consequently, in the epistle to the Hebrews, the 
average number of ἅπαξ λεγόμενα is a little short of twelve to a page ; 
while the average number in the first epistle to the Corinthians, is (with- 
in a small fraction) eighteen to a page. Certain is it then, that if the num- 
ber of ἅπαξ λεγόμενα in our epistle proves that it was not from the hand 
of Paul, it must be more abundantly evident that Paul cannot have been 
the author of the first epistle to the Corinthians, which has a proportion of 
one half more ἅπαξ λεγόμενα than our epistle. 

Such is the basis of the arguments so confidently adduced by Schulz 
and Seyffarth, and so much applauded and trusted in by many other 
critics. It has been often said by logicians, that “ what proves too much, 
proves nothing.” This is well said; and applied to the case before us it 
will show, at once, that the very same means used to overturn the opin- 


§ 29. NATURE OF OBJECTIONS EXAMINED. 205 


ion, that Paul was the author of our episile, would overturn the opinion 
that he wrote any other particular epistle which is universally acknowl- 
edged as coming from his hand. 

But what shall we say, when in addition to all the ἅπαξ λεγόμενα of 
words, we reckon up the phrases of the same sort, which have been ad- 
duced above? [5 here not a mass of evidence apparently overwhelming ? 
Surely, if the first epistle to the Corinthians had been anonymous, the 
whole body of modern writers, who have attacked the Pauline origin of 
the epistle to the Hebrews, must with one unanimous voice have dis- 
claimed the first epistle to the Corinthians as belonging to Paul. [ἢ all 
respects which have any reference to the number of peculiar phrases and 
words that are ἅπαξ λεγόμενα, the first epistle to the Corinthians presents 
far stronger evidence of not being Pauline than our epistle does. 

So unsafe is this argument, although often produced and much relied 
upon, in respect to the important subject which we are examining! How 
much easier is it, too, to make assertious at hazard on a subject of this 
nature, than it is to go through with the excessive labour of verifying 
such assertions, by means of that great rectifier of wandering crities—a 
Greek Concordance? Had this been done long ago, the world had been 
spared a great deal of useless labour, and literature the record of many a 
hasty conclusion from premises unexamined and unestablished. 

But further, the argument against the genuineness of the first epistle to 
the Corinthians could be easily amplified, by appealing still farther to the 
same kind of arguments as are adduced against our epistle. For exam- 
ple ; how easy to ask, ‘If the first epistle to the Corinthians be Paul’s, 
how is it possible, that in so long a letter there is no discussion of Paul’s 
favourite topics in which he was so deeply interested ? How comes it 
to pass, that we have nothing about justification by faith without the deeds 
of law; nothing of the vanity and folly of Jewish rites and ceremonies; 
nothing which asserts the equal rights of Jews and Gentiles, and blames 
the Judaizing teachers and zealots who refused to acknowledge this? 
Where has Paul ever descanted, as here, on the subject of spiritual gifts ; 
on the marriage relation, conditions, habits, and dress of women ; on the 
Lord’s supper; on the support of preachers ; on the comparative value 
of spiritual gifts, and of faith, hope, and love ; and above all, on the con- 
troverted and speculative questions of his time, respecting the manner in 
which the bodies of the saints would rise from their graves, when the 
last trumpet should sound? Where else has Paul or any other sacred 
writer intimated, that the regal power of the Messiah would cease after 
the day of judgment, and that he would be subjected to the Father? Is 
there any parallel to this epistle, either as to matter or manner, in all the 
acknowledged writings of Paul ?’ 

I might proceed still further, and collect a large number of favourite 
expressions often repeated in this epistle, but which seldom or never oc- 
cur in the other Pauline epistles. Many such I have noticed, in the 
course of my investigations; many more than Schulz has been able to 
collect from the epistle to the Hebrews. And if the two epistles to the 
Corinthians were to be the subject of investigation, instead of the first on- 
ly, the list of ἅπαξ λεγόμενα and ἅπαξ λογιζόμενα, and of favourite idioms, 


226 Ὁ 29. NATURE OF OBJECTIONS EXAMINED. 


epistle to the Corinthians in proportion to its length, than in the first ; and 
quite as many peculiar phrases. In a word, after such an investigation 
as I have been through, I am bold to say, that there is not a single epistle 
of Paul’s which may not be wrested from him, by arguments of the very 
same kind as those by which the genuineness of our epistle is assailed, and 
in all respects of equal validity. 

Unfortunately for the cause of criticism, so just and obvious an inves- 
tigation has not hitherto been entered upon. Most of those who have 
doubted the genuineness of the epistle to the Hebrews, have seemed to 
consider it as quite proper to make out from it all the specialities possible, 
and then to reason from them without any fear of mistake. 1 have ex- 
amined their arguments in detail, because I wished to shew how many 
hasty and incorrect assertions have been brought forward as arguments. 
1 have now exhibited the application of the principles on which their 
whole argument stands, to one of Paul’s epistles the genuineness of 
which no critic calls in question, ‘The result is so plain that it cannot be 
mistaken. 

“ But,” it will be asked, “can we never reason, in any case, from dis- 
similarity of language in different compositions, to different persons as au- 
thors?” No doubt we may, in some cases. But not unless the differ- 
ence be greater than in the case before us. It has been shewn above, 
how many striking traits of resemblance to the other letters of Paul there 
are in our epistle. While these remain, the discrepancy can never be 
made out to be great enough to build a sound argument upon it. If 
the question were to be asked, Whether the author of the epistle to the 
Romans could have written the first epistle of John? the answer would 
be easy, nay almost absolutely certain, from internal evidence. But after 
all the striking resemblances which can be shewn between our epistle 
and Paul’s letters ; after proving from actual examination, that the list of 
peculiarities in one of his most conspicuous and acknowledged epistles, is 
much greater than in our epistle ; after making all the reasonable abate- 
ments which must be made, from the peculiarity of the subjects which 
are discussed in our epistle, and of the condition of those to whom it was 
addressed ; after reflection upon the acknowledged fact, that every wri- 
ter’s style is more or less altered by advancing age, by the circumstances 
of haste or leisure in which he writes, by the topics themselves which he 
discusses, and by the degree of excitement which he feels at the time ; 
above all, taking into consideration the fact, that every writer who travels 
to many different countries, resides in many different places, and is con- 
versant with a great variety of men and of dialects, is much more liable 
to change his style somewhat, than he who always resides in the same 
place, and is conversant with the same men and books; after taking, I 
say, all these things into consideration, can any man have reasonable 
grounds to be satisfied, that the peculiarity of style and diction in our 
epistle is such, that its Pauline origin is to be rejected on account of them ? 
I will not undertake to answer for others; but for myself, I can say with 
a clear and an abiding conviction, I do not feel that such an argument 
can stand before the impartial tribunal of criticism. 


§30. oBsECTIONS BY DE WETTE. 227 


ὁ 30. Objections by De Wette. 


De Wette is the well known author of a commentary on the Psalms, of 
a translation of about one half of the Old and New Testaments, of a He- 
brew Archaeology, of a historical and critical Introduction to the Old 
Testament, and of some other works in the departments of sacred criti- 
cism and moral science; all of which have attracted great attention on 
the continent of Europe, on account of the distinguished genius and ex- 
tensive erudition of the author. He is now a Professor in the University 
of Bale, in Switzerland. 

De Wette takes side, as from his habits of thinking and reasoning he 
might be expected to do, with those who deny the Pauline origin of our 
epistle. His arguments are very brief, (asthe nature of his book required 
them to be); and I am not a little surprised to find, that among them all, 
there is not a single one which is not drawn from the works that have 
τ been already examined above. 

_In regard to the external evidence, he has given many of the citations 
from the fathers, adduced in the preceding part of this discussion, pp. 
92—129. But some important ones he has omitted, which speak most 
unequivocally against the views he gives of the opinion of these fathers. 
For example, he merely refers to Euseb. Ecc. Hist. VI. 25, in respect to 
the very important testimony of Origen, which the reader will find on p. 
87 seq. above ; simply remarking that “ Origen gives up the writing down 
of the epistle by Paul, and only attributes the matter of it to him, p. 285.” 
In a note, he subjoins, “ When he [Origen] speaks of the tradition of the 
churches, it is probable, that he means only the Alexandrine church.” In 
regard to such a probability, I must refer the reader to what is said above, 
p. 93, Nos. 7. 8. The probability is very strong, that all of Origen’s hom- 
ilies must have been published in Palestine, for he was licensed to preach 
but a few months before he was driven from Alexandria; see Lardner’s 
Credib. HI. 194. Whether Origen would, under such circumstances, be 
likely to retain any superstitious veneration for the church at Alexandria, 
every reader will be able to judge, so as to satisfy his own mind. It will 
be remembered, that the testimony of Origen now in question, is from 
one of his Homilies on the epistle to the Hebrews. 

In the same manner, he has merely made a simple reference to the im- 
portant testimony of Jerome in his epistle to Dardanus, cited above on p. 
113; while he has inserted at full length all the passages which might 
serve to shew that Jerome had doubts in his own mind, in regard to the 
Pauline origin of our epistle. This he avers to have been the fact. But 
whether there is any just foundation for such an assertion, has already 
been examined above, p. 113 seq. Jerome, no doubt, felt himself obliged 
to use great caution, in regard to the manner in which he spoke of the 
epistle to the Hebrews, because the prevailing sentiment of the western 
churches, in his time, was against the Pauline origin of it. More than 
this can never be fairly deduced, from any of the language which he em- 
ploys. The passages in his epistle to Dardanus, in his commentary on 
Matt. xxyr., and in his book De Viris Illustribus c. V, (supra, pp. 113, 


228 § 30. OBJECTIONS BY DE WETTE. 


seq.), can never be made to speak less than a decided, definite opinion 
on the part of Jerome himself, in respect to the Pauline origin of our 
epistle. How should he have been the oceasion of revolutionizing the 
whole of the western churches, in regard to the sentiment under consider- 
ation, if this were not the case ? 

Other testimonies too De Wette has omitted, which are in favour of 
the Pauline origin of our epistle. In stating the opposition of the Latin 
churches to this sentiment, he has brought forward the doubts of Jerome 
and of bis contemporaries. He has followed these on, down to the sev- 
enth century, by quoting from Primasius, and Isidore Hispalensis. But 
he has not once hinted, that in this same western church, all those dis- 
tinguished bishops who are mentioned above (p. 113), admitted our epis- 
tle to be Paul’s; excepting that he has adduced some of the testimony of 
Jerome and Augustine. 

Besides, he has advanced the broad position, that “ the western church- 
es originally (anfanglich) denied this epistle to be Paul’s.” The passages 
adduced in proof of this, are Euseb. Ecc. Hist. VI. 20, (cited above, p. 
160); V. 26, (supra p. 105); the passages from Photius, Gobar, and 
Hippolytus, (supra pp. 105, 1066); Tertullian, de Pudicitia, ο. 20, (supra 
p. 109 seq.); Cyprian, de Martyr. c. XI., (supra p. 110); Jerome, Epist. 
ad Paulinum, (supra p. 114); and Philastrius. de Haeres. c. 89, who 
speaks only of the opinion of others, himself believing the epistle to be 
Paul’s. But De Wette has not said a word, in this connection, of all the 
evidence adduced in § 12 above, which has relation to this subject; nor 
of the division of opinion that existed in the Latin churches in later times 
and before the days of Jerome, in respect to the subject in question. 

Again, in stating the testimony of the eastern churches, De Wette has 
merely brought forward Eusebius as testifying to the opinions of his own 
times ; see Eusebius’ testimony above, p. 99 seq. At the same time he 
intimates that there were doubts in that part of the church, with regard 
to the Pauline origin of our epistle. He has not, however, produced a 
single author from the East who has expressed any such doubts, (and 
this for a very imperious reason); while, at the same time, he has sedu- 
lously omitted all those cited on p. 103 above, who undoubtedly ascribed 
our epistle to Paul. 

Is this now an wmpartial examination and statement of evidence, on 
this great question ? And has an author, who writes in this hasty man- 
ner without extended examination and without deliberation, any right to 
find fault with others, when they refuse to receive his allegations with 
implicit credit, and betake themselves to such an examination as may 
detect imperfect representation and statements evidently dictated by par- 
tiality ? 

Next, as to the internal grounds of proof that our epistle does not be- 
long to Paul. 

These are, without exception, the same as had been before advanced 
by Eichhorn, Ziegler, Bertholdt, Schulz, and Seyffarth; all of which 
have been examined in the preceding pages. De Wette states, very cate- 
gorically, that the language of our epistle is very different from that of 
Paul; and he appeals to Schulz as having most fully shewn this, in the 


§ 30, osECTIONS BY DE WETTE. 229 


work which has been already examined. How far the case is as Schulz 
has represented it, must now be left to the reader to judge for himself. 

What most of all surprises me, is, that De Wette should produce, as 
special proof of the alleged discrepancy of style, the formulas of quota- 
tion, examined p. 182 seq. No. 18 above ; and also the appellations given 
to the Saviour by the writer of our epistle, examined in p. 197 seq. No. 
19 above ; two of the most unlucky of all the arguments which Schulz 
and Seyffarth have adduced. [Ὁ requires, indeed, a great deal of patience 
and labour to examine this matter to the bottom; more, I am quite in- 
clined from bitter experience to believe, than De Wette consumed in 
writing the whole of the article in his Introduction, which has respect to 
our epistle. 

Besides these two cases of diversity of style, De Wette has proceeded 
to cite a large list of words, all of which are taken from Schulz and 
Seyffarth, and have already been the subject of particular examination. 
With an adventurous step, and without even opening his Greek Concord- 
ance for investigation, he has followed his leaders in this hazardous path, 
and even selected the words examined above on p. 210 No. 34, p. 211 
No. 37, not omitting the most unfortunate of all Dr. Schulz’s guesses, viz. 
the phrases on p. 211 No. 40 above. The word miotig too has come in 
for its usual share of discrepancy, (see above, p. 166.e), and also βασιλεία 
τοῦ ϑεοῦ and τελείωσις. 

He avers, moreover, after Schulz, that the comparison and symbolical 
use of Old Testament passages and ordinances, is foreign to the manner 
of Paul, and like to that of Philo. (See on this subject, p. 141 seq. No. 
2 above). He asserts, too, that Paul could not have represented Chris- 
tianity, as being so correspondent with Judaism, nor Christ as high priest ; 
nor would he have been silent about his office of apostle to the heathen, nor 
concealed the fact that the Christian religion was designed as well for 
Gentiles as Jews. 

Yet how many of Paul’s epistles there are in which these topics are 
not insisted on, and which De Wette himself does not suppose to be spu- 
rious, he does not seem once to have thought of. How is it possible that 
such a writer as Paul should be limited to one circle of objects and rea- 
soning and expression ? De Wette would not like to have the genuine- 
ness of his own works tried by such a rule of scrutiny. 

On the question, To whom was our epistle directed? De Wette has 
exhibited a singular method of treating the subject. He endeavours to 
present difficulties that lie in the way of supposing that it was directed to 
any church; and then comes to the conclusion, that probably it was not 
originally an epistle, but the composition of some companion of Paul, who 
added the personal allusions toward the close of the letter, for the sake of 
giving credit to it as a composition of the apostle ; so that all investigation 
about either the author of the epistle, or the persons to whom it is direct- 
ed, is in vain and useless, pp. 292—294. It seems after all, then, that the 
author of our epistle is a dissembler and a. dishonest man; aiming to 
stand upon the credit of Paul, because he fears that his own credit is in- 
sufficient. But can any candid reader of the epistle refuse to see the 
unequivocal marks of sincerity, candour, high-raised benevolent feeling, 


290 §31. oBsJECTIONS BY BOEHME AND BLEEK. 


and spiritual comprehensive views, every where exhibited ? I repeat it, 
had the writer of such a piece any need of propping up himself, by the aid 
of even Paul’s name and authority? Then how futile, nay foolish, the 
attempt to do so, if his style, diction, manner, reasoning, quotations, circle 
of thought—in a word, every thing—is so tofo coelo diverse from that of 
Paul, as Schulz, Seyffarth, and De Wette represent it! Where were the 
eyes and understandings of the readers? Could they not detect the im- 
posture? And then what would become of the epistle, and of the repu- 
tation of the man who wrote it? Truly one should have better reasons 
than these, before he abandons the conviction which a thorough investiga- 
tion has forced upon him, that Paul is the author of our epistle. 


§ 31. Objections by Boehme and Bleek. 


Nearly contemporary with the work of De Wette, noticed in the preced- 
ing section, is the work of C. F. Boehme, comprised in a volume of about 
800 pages ; which contains an introduction to our epistle, and a transla- 
tion of the same, followed by a copious commentary. Of the author little 
is known in this country, and (if I may judge by such reviews of books in 
Germany as I have perused) little is said in his own country respecting 
him. The work was printed at Leipsic, in 1825. 

Like the critics whose works have been examined in the preceding sec- 
tions, Boehme sets out with the most unqualified assertions respecting the 
discrepancies of style and manner, between the author of our epistle and 
all the other writers of the New ‘Testament. He asserts, that ‘as to the 
form and method of his work, the rhetorical construction of it, and the con- 
stant and accurate observance of order, our author far excels the other con- 
temporary sacred writers.’ He extols the art which the writer of our epistle 
uses, in order to persuade those whom he addressed to follow his advice ; 
in particular he gives, as an example of this, Heb. 3: 7—4: 13, where the 
writer very dexterously, as he says, turns the promise of rest in the land 
of Canaan into a promise of rest in the heavenly world ; to which he adds 
Heb. 11: 8—16, where, as he avers, “the author by the aid of his rhe- 
torical art, and contra fidem historiae, has rendered it aliquatenus probabile 
that Abraham and the other patriarchs had a spiritual rest in view.” 

With many other eulogies he loads the author of our epistle, on ac- 
count of his art, his eloquence, and his excellent Greek; and from all 
this, (as was to be anticipated), he comes to the conclusion, that the au- 
thor could not be Paul, nor any of the other writers of the New Testa- 
ment, he being far superior to them all. 

Into the historical and critical examination of this question, however, he 
does not even pretend to go. He avers, that to do so would be merely 
agere actum. He considers the works of Schulz, Seyffarth, and Ziegler, 
as having finally settled the question, beyond any hope of retrieve by those 
who advocate the Pauline origin of our epistle ; and after appealing to 
the authors just named, and to the considerations which he has himself 
suggested, in respect to the discrepancies of style and manner between 


§ 31. OBJECTIONS BY BOEMME AND BLEEK. 29] 


the author and Paul, he concludes by saying, “that Paul was not the au- 
thor, satis superque demonstratum est a nobis aliisque.” 

This is indeed a summary method of dispatching a question of this na- 
ture ; certainly it is a method which spares writers and readers a great 
deal of severe labour and study. Unfortunately, however, for all these 
rhetorical\appeals to the mere feelings and imagination of men, there are 
some at least who believe in the Pauline origin of our epistle, that are too 
φιλόπονοι to shrink from bringing the whole matter to the test of actual 
investigation, and who will insist upon it, that those who make assertions 
are bound in duty to prove them. 

The work of Boehme, under examination, is not one which bids fair to 
bring any accession of strength to the cause of those who deny the Pau- 
line origin of our epistle ; and al! which I could wish to say respecting 
his suggestions, has been already said in the preceding pages. 

1 cannot deny, however, that he has exhibited something ‘new in his 
book. He has endeavoured to shew that Silas or Sylvanus was the au- 
thor of our epistle, and that it was directed to the church at Antioch ; 
conjectures which not only have not a single voice of ancient testimony 
in, their favour, but which are destitute of any circumstances that render 
them even in a slight degree probable. I cannot help thinking of Bo- 
ehme’s introduction to his work, much as one of his countrymen thinks of 
a certain author who has made some noise of late in the medical world ; 
“ He has some new things, and some true things ; but his new things are 
not true things, and his true things are not new things.” 


Of a very different character from the work of Boehme is that of Prof. 
Bleek, already named in the preface to this volume. 'This writer may be 
reckoned among the first class of German critics, in respect to learning 
and diligence. I add with great pleasure, also, that he has in most cases, 
conducted his arguments with a good degree of moderation and candour, 
and is free from a censorious spirit. He is certainly by far the most 
respectable, (so far as his efforts in regard to our epistle are concerned), 
of all who have fought against the Pauline origin of it. That he has now 
and then overlooked and undervalued the testimony which is against him, 
seems to me very plain; and to this 1 have more than once felt myself 
obliged to advert, in the preceding pages. ‘That in his zeal to carry his 
point, he has attached undue importance to some of the testimonies and 
considerations which he regards as being in his favour, seems to me 
equally plain; and some of these cases I have also felt bound to notice. 
I trust he will not be offended at this liberty. I give and take it with 
equal cheerfulness. His aim and mine should be one and the same, viz. 
the attainment of truth. Iam persuaded that he has not wittingly per- 
verted any testimony or argument, on which he has commented. But 
having apparently settled his mind, before he began the writing of his 
book, on the question about the Pauline origin of our epistle, he seems to 
me now and then to exhibit somewhat of the adroitness and management 
of a special pleader, in order to make out his case. He will pardon me 


ὩΣ ὍΝ OBJECTIONS BY BOEHME AND BLEEK. 


for this frankness; a liberty vehi he ‘tts himself rise in pronouncing 
judgment on some of my arguments in his Review. In the main, he ap- 
pears to have treated the subject with fairness and friendly feeling. My 
convictions are the offspring of an investigation not hasty, but long pro- 
tracted. Ido not deny him the privilege of making the same claim. If 
then we cannot agree in our opinion as to the result, in judging of certain 
facts or testimonies, or in some matters of taste about style, the only al- 
ternative is, to submit our case, with the reasons for our views, to the 
public, and leave those to decide who are not embarked as principals or 
as parties in the discussion. This I shall most cheerfully do; and it is on 
this ground that I have, all along, (where I found new matter in his work 
which seemed to claim particular attention and on which [ thought he 
himself would lay any stress), not failed to introduce it, and to examine 
it. If I have omitted any thing of this nature it is not through design, 
but merely by accident. 

It was more convenient and proper for me thus to consider most of the 
topics of which he has treated, when any thing new was suggested, than 
to throw them together in this place, and make a general review of the 
whole. The reader will of course be most pleased, that a topic entered 
upon should be completed before it is abandoned. 

I have named the work of Bleek here, and give it a separate place at 
present, merely in order to notice some arguments of his not already in- 
cluded in the preceding parts of this volume. 

In § 84, p. 381 seq., Bleek alleges against the Pauline origin of our epis- 
tle, ‘the incorrect representation made by the writer of the arrangement 
of the Jewish Sanctuary, and of the high priest’s official duties performed 
in it, particularly in Heb. IX.’ The particulars which go to establish this, 
are, that the golden altar of incense is placed by him in the inner sanc- 
tuary, Heb. 9: 3,4; and that the golden vial of manna and the rod of 
Aaron that budded, are said to be there ; which is contrary to 1 K. 8: 9. 
and 2 Chron. 5: 10. He alleges also, that in 9:7 the high priest is said 
to have gone into the most holy place only once in each year; whereas it 
appears from Lev. XVI. that he went in several times. 

These difficulties are not new, but they are converted by Bleek to a 
new purpose, and therefore demand some notice. 

In regard, then, to the ϑυμιατήριον (Heb. 9: 4), which Bleek translates 
altar of incense, it needs only to be remarked, that the whole strength of his 
appeal liesin his misconception of the word, Θυμιατήριον merely indicates 
any thing on which incense is burned. Of course it may be used to de- 
signate the altar of incense, and so it may be to designate a censer or in- 
cense-pan that was borne in the hand. Such an one the high-priest car- 
ried with him into the inner sanctuary on the great day of atonement, 
Lev. 16: 12—14. It is usually named mM in Hebrew ; but sometimes 
it is called NMP, as in 2 Chron. 26: 19. Ezek. 8: U1, in both which 
places the Septuagint render it ϑυμιατήριον. 

What is there to shew that in Heb. 9: 4 the meaning is not the same ? 

In regard to the pot of manna and the rod of Aaron, it is sufficient to 
say, that they were deposited where the writer of our epistle affirms them 
to have been, as appears from Ex. 16: 32—34. Num. 17: 10. (17: 25). 


ᾧ 31. OBJECTIONS BY ΒΟΒῊΜΕ AND BLEEK. 233 


All the difficulty suggested by Bleek, arises from his having overlooked 
the fact, that the writer of our epistle is describing the tabernacle as tt ori- 
ginally was, not the temple in after ages. 

In regard to both these subjects, [ refer the reader to EXxcursus XVI. 
XVII. at the close of the present work. 

In respect to the high priest’s entering the sanctuary more than once, 
comp. Ley. 16: 2. It would appear by Lev. 16: 12, 14, 15, that during 
the day of general atonement, he entered the inner sanctuary several 
times, (see on Heb. 9:7). But the writer of our epistle plainly speaks 
here of one day, one time, in distinction from other days and times of the 
year. Just so does Philo speak of the same subject, “ ἅπαξ τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ 
the high priest entered the inner sanctuary,” De Mor. If. p. 821. Legat. ad 
Caium, p. 1035. 

With the explanations of these difficulties now given, the nature of the 
case seems well to accord. How is it possible, [ would ask, to stppese 
with any degree of probability, that the writer of our epistle, whoever he 
might be, was ignorant of so obvious and palpable a fact as the position of 
the altar of incense ? a thing which no one that had ever been at the tem- 
ple, or heard a description of its services from those who had been there, 
could possibly be ignorant of. Was the writer of our epistle a novice 
in the knowledge of the Jewish Scriptures? The frequency with which 
he has quoted them, the manner in which he employs them and speaks 
of them, may answer this question. And did he not know, must not ey- 
ery Jew at home and abroad have known, that every morning and every 
evening, throughout the whole year, incense was burned upon the altar 
appropriated to this purpose? Ex. 30:7,8. Luke 1:9, 11. Did he 
not know, too, that the high priest did not, and could not lawfully, enter 
the inner sanctuary, except on one day of the year only? This Heb, 
9:7 testifies. How then, since incense, as he well knew, must be burn- 
ed every day on the altar, could he at the same moment mark the position 
of the altar as being in the inner sanctuary, which could be approached 
only once in each year? The thing is plainly too incredible to meet with 
assent. 

What influence, moreover, could any writer expect to have with He- 
brews who looked with wonder and admiration on the apparatus and 
rites of the temple, provided he manifested an ignorance respecting these 
things so gross, as the case supposed by Bleek would argue? Truly 
none. He could reasonably expect them to do nothing less than to scoff 
at him. A Jew not know whether the altar of incense, which was used 
every day by the priests, was in a place which could be approached only 
once ina year! When this can be made probable, then we may consent 
to regard many other assertions of some critics about our epistle as proba- 
ble, which we are now compelled to reject. 

Nor does the case appear any better in regard to the sacred pot of 
manna and the rod of Aaron which budded. Could the writer of our 
epistle be ignorant of passages, which were so deeply interesting to a Jew 
as | Κα. 1:9. 9 Chron.5:10? And even if he had not read them, was 
it possible that there should not have been a universal knowledge among 
the Jewish nation, by report, at the period in which he lived, respecting 


234 § 31. OBJECTIONS BY BOEMME AND BLEEK. 


the fact whether any relics of the Mosaic age were in the ark of the tes- 
timony? ‘Truly it would be a great tax on one’s credulity, to believe 
what is in itself so exceedingly improbable. 

As the text then does not at all compel us, by any sound rules of in- 
terpretation, to make such an exegesis as Bleek defends ; and as the na- 
ture of the case renders his supposition highly improbable ; I feel con- 
strained to absolve the writer of our epistle from the charge of such gross 
ignorance as Bleek attributes to him, and to believe that he needs not 
correction from the critical acumen of the present times. Bleek himself 
will bear with me, when I suggest, that this correction does not come in 
the best manner from him, since he has himself, p. 387, made a statement 
respecting the Jewish temple at Leontopolis, which implies, that the altar 
of incense might there have been put in the most holy place, nach der 
Etnrichtung der Stifishiitte, agrecably to the arrangement of the tabernacle. 
This he says, in order to show that if the author of our epistle were an 
Egyptian, it would be very natural fer him to make the mistake he has 
done, concerning the position of the altar of incense. But was the altar ef 
incense in the most boly place in the tabernacle, as the whole passage in 
Bleek seems evidently to suppose ? Ex. 30: 6—8 will answer this question. 

After producing the objections above canvassed, Bleek proceeds to sun 
up the historical evidence, in a brief way, which results from the previ- 
ous investigations in his work. I deem it unnecessary to repeat the ex- 
amination of this, as the whole subject has been so copiously discussed in 
the preceding pages. I shall content myself with only a few remarks on 
some declarations which this writer now and then makes, in the course 
of his summary. 

He says, that ‘ after the middle of the second century we find evidence 
that the epistle was regarded as Paul’s;_ but this, only in a particular part 
of the church, viz. at Alexandria.’ 

Is there no evidence, then, that the oriental churches regarded it as such, 
at this time? None from its being in the Peshito? None from what 
Eusebius and Jerome say, in regard to the custom of the Greek churches ? 

‘At Alexandria, it is doubtful whether it was received on the ground 
of tradition, or only that of critical conelusion.’ 

I will reply to this only by asking the reader to review the testimony 
of Pantaenus, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen, relative to this subject. 

He asserts, also, that ‘in all the western churches, from the middle of 
the second century down to the middle of the third, it was believed not to 
be Paul’s. He suggests too that Clement of Rome, who was manifestly ac- 
quainted with our epistle, must have known it to be Paul’s, if indeed it 
was so; and that the tradition would haye gone down from him in such 
a way, that this could never have been called in question at Rome, 
which ou the contrary, was the very place that most strenuously denied 
1. 

In regard to the assertion that all the western churches denied the 
Pauline origin of our epistle, I must refer the reader again to the examin- 
ation of this subject in the preceding sheets. In respect to*Clement of 
Rome, whether he was the Clement mentioned by Paul in Phil. 4: 3, 
there is no certain evidence. Tradition speaks in favour of it. But if it 


§ 32. HEBRAISMS OF THE EPISTLE. 235 


Were so, it does not follow that he was in circumstances, at the time 
when our epistle was written, to know whether Paul wrote it or not. If 
he were not, then he could only judge, as others did, by the probabilities 
of the case, and by current report. But evidence from either of these 
sources, was of course of such a nature as might more easily be suspect- 
ed or gainsayed, than the evidence derived from the author’s name being 
subscribed. After ages might call in question what Ciement believed ; 
and there would be nothing strange in this. How often the like things 
take place elsewhere, needs not to be insisted on here. 


§ 32. Hebraisms and non-conformity to classic usage in the Epistle. 


All the writers who have declared against the Pauline origin of our 
epistle, have appealed to Origen’s declaration, “λλὰ ἐστίν ἡ ἐπιστολὴ συν- 
ϑέσει τῆς λέξεως “βλληνικωτέρα, the epistle [to the Hebrews] in the texture of 
its style is more conformed to the Greek rdiom, or is better Greek, [than the 
epistles of Paul]. Eichhorn, Bertholdt, Ziegler, Schulz, Seyffarth, De 
Wette, Boehme, Bleek, and others, have one and all urged this considera- 
tion, and insisted upon it that Origen’s judgment on this point must be 
considered as decisive, 

In respect to the general principles of criticism which are to regulate 
our investigation of such a matter, [ have already said all which I wish 
to say, p. 161seq. The actual comparison of our epistle with the acknowl- 
edged epistles of Paul, has also been made, p. 140—155 above. It may 
however be of some importance to add, in this place, a list of some of 
the Hebraisms and of the examples of non-conformity to classic usage, 
which occur in our epistle, in order to meet the very categorical assertion 
of De Wette, Boehme, and others, that ‘the style of our epistle is not on- 
ly very different from that of Paul, but that it is composed in purer 
Greek, and with a far more oratorical diction.’ 

In making out these, I acknowledge the difficulty of the task in some 
of the cases which occur. It may happen, that what we are on the whole 
bound to regard as non-conformity with Greek classic usage, in the pres- 
ent state of information on that subject, may turn out, on further examin- 
ation, to be actually conformed to this usage. ‘Thus, for example, Wi- 
ner, in his new and laborious investigation of the classics for the sake of 
illustrating the syntax of the New Testament Greek, has struck out not a 
few phrases from the list of Hebraisms, Hellenisms, etc., that had before 
been generally classed as such. Still, I can aver in relation to this sub- 
ject, that I make use of the best meaus in my power; and if I sometimes 
err, I shall rejoice to be corrected in every instance of this nature. 

It is proper here, before proceeding to exhibit examples of the kind in 
question, to say a word on the principles by which one ought to be guid- 
ed in selecting and judging of such examples. 

Hebraism I understand to be, either an imitation of Hebrew phraseology 
in the expression of an idea, which might have been differently expressed 
i. e. by other phrases or forms of the Greek that were more conformed to 
classic usage ; or else the assigning to a Greek word a sense which does 


236 ᾧ 32. ΠΒΒΠΑΙΒΜΒ OF THE EPISTLE. 


not “ΜΡ to it in classic usage, but which does belong to the corres- 
ponding Hebrew word. For an example of the first kind, I would pro- 
duce ἐσχάτου τῶν ἡμέρων, Heb. D237 NWN, as ποτ a form and 
sense that are peculiar; as an example of ‘the second ficial one may 
name κληρονόμος, possessor, lord, ruler, (as used in Heb. 1: 2), like the 
Hebrew ταῦ; but in classic Greek it designates one who takes an es- 
tate, etc., by Jot, or by testament. In both these cases, the Greek affords 
other words by which the idea of the writer might have been conveyed. 
The choice of these, then, employed in such a way as they are here em- 
ployed, shews the influence which Hebraistie usage had upon him. 

Besides the two classes of words here adverted to, [ may name two 
more, which show departure from classic usage ; viz. (1) Such as offer 
a new or unclassical ineaning; and (2) Such as are new, i. e. not clas- 
sical, in point of form. If now any of these four classes of words can be 
mand i in our epistle, so far as they go they are the opposite of the φράσις 
“βλληνικωτέρα which Origen and modern critics assert of the epistle. 
These are fair subjects of investigation, then; and to these we may also 
add, combinations of words, i. e. phrases, which, although the words οὗ 
themselves are proper Greek words, yet the combinations are such as are 
discrepant from any classic examples. 

Having thus marked out the ground which we mean to survey, let us 
proceed to the task. 


Words and phrases used ina Hebraistic sense, or in a way different from what is usual 
in the Greek classics. 


Cuar. I. (1) Ματράσι, ancestors of old time, NAAN. Seldom or never 
does classical Greek so employ this word. Besides, ἡμῶν (which we 
might naturally expect) is here omitted; such is the custom of Paul, see 
Rom. 9:5. 11:20. 15:8 “Ex” ἐσχάτου τῶν ἡμερῶν, the time of the Mes- 
siah, the last age of the world, DW2777 N°7N; purely Hebrew. (2) KAy- 
gorouos, lord, ruler, O37; in classic Greek, one who takes by lot, or by 
testament. (3) δόξα, splendour, brightness, radiance, T1235 “in? Greek, 
opinion, sentiment, maxim, fame, honour. “Trootacsws αὐτοῦ, of his 
substance, i. 6. of himself, ἘΣ, ὯΞΣ. αΑΚαϑαρισμὸν...... τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν, 
expration | for sin, DAADET , (Sept. καϑαρισμός Ex. 29:36, 30:10); see 
Comm. in loc. ΔΙεγαλωσίνη, majesty, excellence, NIN, 544; not found 
in the classics. “Ey ὑψηλοῖς, in heaven, in the world above, nines, Sept. 
ἐν ὑψηλοῖς. (4) Κεκληρονόμηκε, obtained, U2; Greek, to acquire’ by lot, 
to inherit. Same word in 1: 14. 

I omit purposely all the quotations which follow here, and all through- 
out the epistle, which are made from the ancient Seriptures; because, as 
they were doubtless made, in general, from the Septuagint version, they 
cannot be justly considered as properly belanging to the style of our au- 
thor. If the Hebraisms in all these quotations were to be added to the 
list of those in the rest of the epistle, it would make it to appear something 
very different from “Ἑλληνικωτέρα. Whether Origen did, or didnot, mean 
to exclude them, no one, so far as I know, has yet attempted to show. 

Chap. If. (2) -Adyoc, commination, command, or revelation, 7273; not so 


ᾧ 32. HEBRAISMS OF THE EPISTLE. 237 


in the classics. (8) Bivogates the Christian religion with its nen and 
promises ; certainly not a classical sense of the word. (4) “υνάμεσι, mi- 
raculous powers, miracles, 37723 , ἵν, nina: , all of which the Septua- 
gint translate by δύναμις; in the classics, hot so. Θέλησιν, a word un- 
known to the Attics. (5) Οἰκουμένην μέλλουσαν, the gospel dispensation, 
Naa DD IsiT ; purely Jewish. (10) Ζόξαν, future happiness, a glorious 
condition in’ another world ; peculiar to Hellenistic Greek. Τελειῶσαι, to 
advance to glory, to bestow on one the rewards of piety or obedience after the 
close of life; and passively, to be glorified, to be made happy, or to be reward- 
ed in the upper world, after the Christian struggle on earth is finished ; see 
and comp. 5:9. 7: 28. 11: 40. 12:23. See also and comp. Phil. 3: 12, 
there being no other like example in the New Testament, unless indeed 
Luke 13: 32 affords one. The classical sense of this word is to accom- 
plish, lo complete, to render complete, to bring to an end, to finish, etc.; a 
sense which gave occasion, no doubt, to a peculiar use of τελειόω in our 
epistle ; but which still is different from it. (11) ᾿“γιάζων and ἁγιαζόμε- 
yor, making atonement cinta and those for whom atonement ts made or who 
are expiated, WIP and 42D are both rendered by ἁγιάζω in the Septuagint, 
comp. 10: 103 in the esis ἁγιάζω means to Publ nay to make or de- 
clare sacred. (12) Exxdnoic, public religious assembly, > ΞΡ 2 | MSY, RIP; 
in the classics, public civil assembly. (14) shai καὶ αἵματος, ee na- 
ture, corporeal state or condition, V2, DJ=WH} , see Gen. 9: 4, and in the 
New Testament 1 Cor. 15: 50. Matt. 16:17. iGal: 1: 16, al.; not so us- 
ed in the classics. Καταργήσῃ, to destroy, to render null or oe 5 
classics, to be idle, to remain sluggish or inactive. Ζιάβολον, Satan, jou, 
the devil ; classics, a slanderer, an accuser. (16) “4yyéiwy, angels, heavenly 
messengers, DXDN>7 ; in the classics, ἄγγελος Means simply, messenger 
or message. Σπέρματος, progeny, offspring, 93, frequent in the New 
estanietit, and three times in our epistles rarely, if ever, has it this 
sense among the classics. The frequency of it is Hellenistic. 

Chap. ΠΙ. (1) ᾿Αδελφοὶ ἅγιοι, ΛΘ ΤΡ, Ps. 16: 5. et saepe, professed peo- 
ple of God, worshippers of God ; in a sense different from the ἅγιος of 
the classics: Κλήσεως ἐπουρανίου, invitations or privileges of the gospel ; 
no parallel in common Greek. ᾿ἡπόστολον καὶ ἀρχιερέα τῆς ὁμολογίας ; 
such a combination is utterly foreign to the classics. Moreover ὁμολογίας, 
profession, professed religion, has no parallel in classic usage, where it 
means agreement, accord, promise, engagement, contract, etc. (2) Oxo 
in the sense of utters of God, the assembly of the faithful, n°2, m2 
b>, peculiar to Hellenistic Greek. “παῤῥησίαν, boldness, confidence, un- 
daunted profession ; ; in the classics, free speech, frankness, openness, im- 
partiality in speaking, judging, etc. Comp. 4: 16. 10: 35. (12) Ζῶντος, 
living, i. 6. everlasting, eternal, everliving, Heb. 7 >N, ϑεὸς ζῶν; in the 
classics, ζάω means to live as an animal, ete ; or to jg figuratively, i i. 6. to 
be happy, to be prosperous, etc. 'The phrase Seog ζῶν is purely a trans- 
lation of ὅπ dN. (13) Kad’ ἑκάστην ἡμέραν, continually, constantly ; in 
the classics the same phrase would mean daily, each day. Σκληρύνω, 
Pit, TWP, applied to the heart or mind ; only literally used in the clas- 
sics. (14) Ὑποστάσεως, confidence, stable ἜΜ settled disposition of mind. 


238 § 32. NEBRAISMS OF THE EPISTLE. 


——— 


But here it may be doubted, whether the classic use of the word in the 
sense of steadfastness, boldness, courage, is not sufficiently near to exempt 
the word from peculiarity. (16) ITugenizouvey, 7772, IO, not of clas- 
sie usage. (17) Προσώχϑιζε, DAP, not a classic “word. ᾿Ἱμαρτήσασι, 
DINE, sinners, violators of divine precepts; classic usage, to miss the 
mark, to fail, ete.; the sense of sinners or offenders, as in our epistle, is 
seldom and doubtful in the classics. Ἰῶλα, carcasses, corpses, © D4; in 
common Greek, members, limbs. (18) Κατάπαυσιν, riya, rest, "future 
rest or happiness; Greek, a causing of rest, stilling, qnietinies See also 
4: 10. 

Chap. IV. (1) Εἰσελϑεῖν wants the usual tov before it, which is em- 
ployed in the like eases by the classical writers. (2) Εὐαγγελισμένοι, WWE , 
used here in a more appropriate and peculiar sense than in the classics. 
Ὃ λόγος τῆς ἀκοῆς, BING , MLA , found in Paul, 1 Thess. 2: 18; the words 
are classic, but the combination is altogether ἘΣ se from any in the clas- 
sics. (3) Καταβολῆς κόσμου, foundation, i. e. beginning, creation, of the 
world, Heb. YANT~17950, (comp. 2Sam. 22: 16. Ps. 18:7, 15. Job. 38: 
4. Ps, 82:5. 104:5. Prov. 8:29. Is. 24: 18. 40: 91. 51:13, ete.) But 
where, in the classics, is such an expression used for such a purpose ? 
See also 9:26. (6) ᾿“πολείπεται, it remains, i. e. it must be so that; a 
sense foreign to tne classics in such a way as it is here employed, viz. 
before the apodosis of a sentence, and as a kind of ergo or sequitur of 
the logicians. See also v.9. (9) Σαββατισμός is of course a mere He- 
brew word with a Greek ending. Ibid., τῷ λαῷ τοῦ ϑεοῦ, Heb. SIF DF 
a combination foreign to the Greek, and ὙΠ Hebrew, (10) Hiecteeieanae 
to rest, neuter verb; in the classics, to cause to rest, to make quiet, transi- 
tive verb. (12) Ζῶν, perpetual, as before. (13) Οὐκ... κτίσις, b> Nd, 
Greek οὐδέν, no creature, nothing ; κτίσις, in the classics, means the act of 
creating. Tore ὀφϑαλμοῖς avTOU=ND> , wEyS , a. eto ham; before him ; 
for although the sense of eyes here would’ come well after γυμνά, yet it 
does not at all agree with τετραχηλισμένα, with neck outstretched and bent 
back. 'The writer plainly had in his mind the meaning of one of the He- 
brew expressions mentioned above. (14) Οὐρανούς, naw, the Hebrew 
idea of the firmament above. * Owohoyias, religion, professed subjection to 
Christ, Sept. for 1°43, votum. (15) ᾿Ασϑενείαις, moral weakness, Sept. for 
Siuinz stumbling, and yx, claudreatio ; ; classics, physical weakness, with 
various shades. (16) Θρόνος τῆς χάριτος, Without a parallel in the classics. 

Chap. V. (2) Mergiomadsiy, to be compassionate, to shew kindness to; in 
the classics, to moderate one’s passions of grief, anger, etc. (3) Προσφέ- 
θειν, to offer gifts and sacrifices to God, DAPT, DAT, NAT; in Greek, 
not appropriate to this sacred rite. (5) “Eavroy ἐδόξασε, did not αὐτοραΐὸ 
to himself the honour, did not claim for himself the honour ; classics, to bes 
lieve, suppose, praise, celebrate. (7) Τῆς σαρκὸς αὑτοῦ, of his incarnation, 
of las mortal condition or state, \7v2; classics, flesh as a substance, ani- 
mal body. ὐλαβείας, object of fear, that which he feared, like the Heb. 
N17, Is. 8: 12, 13. Ps. 76: 12; classic sense, fear, terror. Πισακουσϑεῖς, 
delivered, saved, Sept. for 3D, τῶν. (19) Τὰ στοιχεῖα τὴς ἀρχῆς τῶν 
λογίων ; such an expression is wanting in the classics. 1 ἄλακτος ...- 


§ 32. ΠΕΒΕΛΙΒΜΒ OF THE EPISTLE. 239 


τροφῆς, not a classical metaphor. (13) Aoyou δικαιοσύνης, Christian or 
religious doctrine ; without an example in the classics. 

Chap. VI. (1) Nexoay ἔργων, deadly, destructive works, D497, 5975 
occidere, Septuagint, yexoog’ see also 9:14. (2) "βαπτισμῶν διδαχῆς, ἐπιϑέὲ: 
σεώς τε χειρῶν, foreign to the classics; as is χρήματος αἰωνέου. (4) Πνεύ- 
ματος ἁγίου, OB Ἐπ 71773 ; an expression and an idea foreign to all the 
classics. (5) Kahoy.... ῥῆμα, promise of good, so 210 37 often in He- 
brew ; classics, declaration, any thing τις πόῆν ΖΙυνάμεις μέλλοντος αἰῶνος, 
miraculous powers under the gospel dispensation; an utter stranger to 
the classic authors. (7) Βοτάγην, any kind of fruit which the earth pro- 
duces, Avy; in Greek simply herbage, vegetation. (8) Eig καῦσιν, ἜΣΞ:; 
ΕΗ, ποῖ the classical Greek be καῦσις 3 (10) Eig τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ, ᾿ιὸ- 
ward him, toward his cause, for his sake, (ἢ ΣῪ, ὄνομα being pleonastic, as 
in Hebrew. (11) Τληροφορίαν, a word found only in the New Testament 
and ecclesiastical Greek. (12) Maxgoduuiuc, patient wating 5.) DAN , prolon- 
gatio, Sept.; which I cannot find in the classics. Mndayouasipotes obtaining, 
Heb. 2747; seeonl: 2. (15) Τῆς ἐπαγγελίας, the promised blessing ; clas- 
sic sense, promise. (17) ᾿Ημεσέτευσε, interposed ; classics, to act the part of 
a mediator. 

Chap. VIL. (1) Θεοῦ ὑψίστου, pees the words are classic Greek, but 
the combination is Hebrew. Konic, slaughter, ; D2 5 Greek, ΟΝ 
cutting out. (3) ᾿“πάτωρ, ἀμήτωρ, without any genealogy of parents ; the 
classic writers apply these words to their gods, and to orphan children, in 
quite a different sense. (4) ᾿᾿ἀχροϑινίων, spoils in general (see Gen. 14: 
20); classics, first fruits, part of the spoils of war presented to the gods. 
Πατριάρχης, niaxnm ΟΝ; I cannot find any trace of this word in the 
classics. (5) *Anodexersen, to tithe, to take a tenth part, wr; peculiar to 
Hebrew Greek. ᾿Εξεληλυϑότας & &% τῆς ὀσφύος ᾿Αβραάμ, ὩΣ shiny DINE); 
the Greeks said γεννᾶσϑαι ὑπό τινος in such a case, so that the above « ex. 
pression is purely Hebrew. (6) “Ιεκατόω, as ἀποδεκατόω in y. 5. (10) 
Ἔν τῇ ὀσφύι τοῦ πατρός, see above on v. ὅ. (11) Τελεέωσις, in ἃ sense swi 
generis, aud foreign to the classics. (16) Sagxuixije, perrshable, short lived, 
7iv2; not found in the classics in such a sense. δύναμιν ζωῆς ἀκαταλύ-- 
του, ‘where δύναμιν has the meaning of precept, ordinance, arrangement, 
(like ἐντολή in the preceding clause), and ζωῆς that of perpetuity ; both of 
ao meanings are foreign to the classics. ΜΖ τελείωσε, see τελείωσις in 

, 11 above. (20) Ορκωμοσίας, peculiar to our epistle 5 the classic ogxw- 
μόσια (with antepenult accent) is an adjective, ἱερά being understood after 
it; see also ν. 28. (22) “ιαϑήκης, in the sense of the ether n2. 

Chap. VIII. (1) Ἔν δεξιᾷ τοῦ ϑρόνου τῆς μεγαλοσύνης, where μὲγαλο-- 
σύνης is not only a word which is not employed by the classics, but an 
abstract noun designating the Divinity ; comp. Heb. 335, 5425, and 
Ti22 NQD>. The whole phraseology i is altogether of a Hebrew cast; at 
least it is not classical. (2) “4yiwr, plural Dw stp WIP; classics, ἅγιον. 
Σκηνῆς, the divine τις, ἢ 730; classics, ἃ common tent or dwelling. (6) 
Meoitye, in a diesen sense “from What is usual in the classics. The 
long quotation from the Septuagint that follows, is not more Hebraistic 
than the surrounding context. 


Chap. IX. (1) Διχαιώματα, ordinance, arrangements, DOW; classics, 
ΞΘ 


240 ᾧ 32. HEBRAISMS OF THE EPISTLE. 


sentence of justice, decision, just action or requisition. (3) “ἅγια ἁγίων, 
Heb. DWP. WIP, a φράσις which is an entire stranger to the Greek 
classics, and ay ee Hebraistic. (4) That μάννα, αἵ πλάκες τῆς διαϑήκης, 
and Χερουβὶμ δόξης (ν. 5), are forms or phrases purely Hebrew, will not 
of course be questioned. As, in the sense of splendour (as here), is 
not classic, but is, the Heb. 3733. (5) ᾿λαστήριον, MDD, Septuagint 
word; classics, ἱλαστήριος -ἰα, ἴον, adjective. (9) αραβολή, symbol ; 
leics: comparison, similitude in speech or writing. ὙΤελειῶσαι, to ex- 
piate, to render pure, in the sense of “BD or O72m; a sense foreign to 
the classics; comp. 10:1. (10) Bumtucuoig I take to ‘be a Hellenistic, not 
a classic word ; for this appears to be βάπτισις or βάπτισμα. See also 
6: 2, βαπτισμῶν. (11) “Agytegers μελλόντων ἀγαϑῦν, unlike any thing in 
the classics. (12) Ταύτης τῆς χτίσεως, of the present world ; κτίσις in the 
classics means, the act of creating. Evgcéusvos, form sui generis. (13) 
ἐπειδιο καλόν, the unclean, ὩΣ ΤΙ, men; Greek κοιγόω, to communi- 
cate, to share, to render common. ‘Ay unter, purifies, YIP ; Greek, to con- 
secrate, to devote. (16) Φέρεσθαι, accidere, to happen ; it is sui generis. 

(18) ᾿Εγκεκαΐνισται, was ratified ; classics to renew. (22) Aiwarexyvotue, 
sut generis. (24) ᾿Εμφανισϑῆναι, to appear in behalf of, to appear as an 
advocate or patron ; in the classics, to shew, to reveal. Ib. τῷ προσώπῳ, 
before, 2D ; unknown to the classics. (26) Καταβολῆς κόσμου, a combi- 
nation unknown to the classics; comp. 4:3. Suvrtedeig τῶν αἰώνων, the 
end of the former dispensation ; no where in common Greek. (98) “duoo- 
τίας, sin offering, sacrifice for sin, ONO, DWN ; not in the classics. 

Chap. Χ. (1) “εἰκόνα, complete dette ‘perfect delineation, (in distinction 
from σκιά, an imperfect sketch), m722m; the Greek εἰχών is simply, image. 
Τελειῶσαι, see on 9:9. (10) Ἡγιασμένοι, comp. 2:11. (13) To λοιπόν, 
thenceforth, as to future time ; in the classics, for the rest, in fine, according- 
ly, ete. The sense here given to τὸ λοιπόν is not inconsistent with the 
classical use of the word ; but would a classic Greek have expressed the 
idea, “thenceforth expecting, ” by τὸ λοιπόν ἐκδεχόμενος 3 [5 this a φράσις 
“Πλληνικωτέρα 2 Τεϑῶσιν ot ἐχϑροὶ αὐτοῦ ὑποπόδιον τῶν ποδῶν αὐτοῦ, a 
phrase purely Hebraistic in its hue; see Ps. 110:1. [2]. (14) Τετελείωκε, 
see on 9:9. 10:1. (19) μαῤῥησίαν, free access; classics, free speech, 
openness, impartiality. (20) Ζῶσαν qualifying such a word as ὅδόν, is a 
combination unknown to the classics. (22) ᾿Βρῥδαντισμένοι τὰς καρδίας, 
altogether Hebrew in its hue; in the classics, sprinkled. (24) Παροξυσ-- 
μόν, excitement in a good sense; the Greeks used the word for excitement 
of anger or other passions, and to designate the exacerbations of fever, 
etc. (25) Ἡμέρα, the day of the Lord, the day of terror, D7, TIT Bi, 
altogether in a Hebrew sense. (27) Πυρὸς ζῆλος, ὮΝ p45, exacily He- 
brew. (29) Κοινόν, an unclean thing ; see eee 9: 19, (31) ᾿Εμπεσεῖν 
εἰς χεῖρας ϑεοῦ ζῶντος ; the classic Greek is, εἰς χεῖρας ἐλϑεϊν---ἰξναι---ἰκέσϑαν 
-Οαἀπικέσϑαι----συνιέναι. The form ἐμπεσεῖν εἰς χεῖρας is evidently a copy 
of the Hebrew 422 552. (39) “APAjow... . παϑημάτων, a method of ex- 
pression foreign to the classics. (35) IZadéyotar, confidence, Christian 
trust ; classics, boldness or freedom of speech. Muirdunodootay, reward ; 
sur generis. (36 5) “Exayyshiay, promised blessing ; classics, promise. (39) 
"Εἰς ἀπόλειαν, like the Heb. Inf. 2-9 that we should be destroyed; and 


δὼ HEBRAISMS OF THE EPISTLE, 24] 


SO, εἰς περιποίησιν ; in both cases an rer imitation of the Heb, ‘Inf 
with >. 

Chap. ΧΙ. (2) ᾿δμαρτυρήϑησαν, celebrated, well spoken of, like the Heb, 
WITT, VST, Job 29: 11; classics, to give testimony, to call to witness, 
ete. (3) Aiaves, worlds, Dw>4y , icntivel Jewish. “Ρήματι, command, 
737, VAN; Greek, saying, thing ἘΜ (5) “Wey ϑάνατον, Ὡπὸ mN4, 
nin πὸ . Οὐχ εὑρίσκετο, 12298 ; foreign to the classics. (6) Mio 9 ar0- 
δότης I cannot find in classic Greek. (7) Κόσμον, the ungodly, the world 
who were sinful ; not of classic usage. “Πκαιοσύνης, Justifying, of justifi- 
cation ; classics, equity, uprightness. (8) Ete xh, ᾿ηρονομέαν, Γι Ὁ iy would 
not the φράσις “Βλληνικωτέρα have been ὡς xAnoovoutuy, or rather ὡς ὑπάφ- 
χον αὑτοῦ 2 (9) Συγκληρονόμον, joint-possessors ; foreign in this sense to 
common Greek. (19) “Ly παραβολῇ, peculiar method of expression. (34) 
Στόματα μαχαΐρας, the edge of the sword, ἌΤΙ ΞΘ, unknown to classic 
authors. (37) “Ey φόνῳ wazatous, with the murderous sword, a Hebrew 
combination. (39) Π7]αρτυρηϑέντες, see v. 1. 

Chap. XU. (7) Παιδείαν, chastisement, \5172 ; the meaning here given 
to this word, is seldom, if ever, given in the classics. (9) Tis σαρκὸς 
ἡμῶν πατέρας, a Hebrew, not a classic combination of ideas ; σαρχός mean- 
ing the physical man, in distinction from the mental one. Τῷ πατρὶ τῶν 
πνευμάτων, Heb. "nv = 555 mins “TSN , Num. 16: 22. 97: 16; for- 
eign to all the ΤΣ (10) “ἁγιότητος can ‘hardly be found, I beliewe in 
the classics. It is a Hellenistic term, corresponding to τ ZIP. (11) Kag- 
mov εἰρηνικόν, peaceful fruit, i.e. happy fruit, nibw IAD; εἰρηνικόν here 
manifestly bearing the Hebrew-Greek, and not the classic sense. (14) 
Οὐδεὶς ὄψεται τὸν κύριον, SO ΠῚ») τὶς NS m7 m™ "BTN TNT ND; 
the whole form of expression is manifestly Hebraistic. (16) Βρώσεως 
μιᾶς, one meal ; classics, the act of eating, or food. The certainty that 
meal is the idea here, arises from the adjunct μιᾶς. Πρωτοτύκια, Heb. 
M712; not used in the classics. (19) My agocteFijvar αὐτοῖς λόγον, 
29> ‘Shy RID "m3, a Hebrew and not a Greek mode of expression. 
(22) “Μῦὺυριάσι, ἼΞ., ΓΞ τι, the usual Hebrew (not a classic) expression 
for a large indefinite number. (23) Προτοτόκων, first-born in the sense 
of pre-eminent, like the Heb. D°23; a sense not attached to the classical 
use of this word. ᾿Απογεγραμμένων ἐν οὐρανοῖς, pelle ΞΊΠΞΙΙ ΞΞ lee 
4: 8, Comp. Ex. 32: 32. Ps. 69:28. Dan, 12: 1. Luke 10: 20, etc., an 
expression altogether Hebraistic. 

Chap. XIII. (1) Φιλαδελφέα, mutual Christian love ; in the classics (e.g. 
Lucian), in its literal sense. (3) Ὄντες ἐν σώματι, in a frail dying state ; 
not so expressed in the classics. The mode of expression comes from 
the Hebrew, 4a. (7) “Hyouuevey, teachers, spiritual guides, 4979272, 918; 
classic sense never that of teachers. (8) Χϑὲς καὶ σήμερον, 297531 ἼΩΝ ; 
where in all the classics is the like of this, in order to designate all past 
and present time? (9) Περιπατήσαντες, who are conversant with, who prac- 
tice using, from the Heb. 737; the classics use the word only in its 
literal sense. (15) Θυσίαν αἰνέσεως ..... κάρπον χειλέων ; the idea, sacrifice 
of praise, i is Hebrew, Lev. 7: 12, τη] ΓΙ may, comp. Ps. 50: 14, 23. As 
to κάρπον χειλέων, there is nothing in the classics ἊΝ it. Plainly it has 
its original in the Hebrew ἜΘ O75 maw , Hos. 14: 3, we will. 

31 


Q42 § 32. HEBRAISMS OF THE EPISTLE. 


render to thee the calves [i. e. the offerings, the fruit] of our lips, or rather, 
we will render to thee calves with our lips. (16) Θυσίαις, as applied to 
εὐποιίας. καὶ κοινωνίας, is purely a Hebrew application. (17) “Ὑπὲρ τῶν 
ψυχῶν ὑμῶν, Jor you, ἘΞ ΘΕΣ ; the Greeks, ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν. (90) Ὃ δὲ 
ϑεὸς τῆς εἰρήνης, God who bestows happiness, who secures our welfare ; 3a 
mere imitation of the Heb. nibw , the classics never using εἰρήνη in such 
asense. (21) Εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας ae αἰώνων, from the adinaer 337 nbise 4 
or ἽΣ 795495 (25) ‘H χάρις μετὰ πάντων ὑμῶν, Hebrew pot pibw; 
the Greeks said, χαίρειν, or χαίρετε, or ἔθρδωσϑε, Acts 15: 29. 


In this selection, I have aimed at taking only the more obvious words 
and phrases. It might be enlarged, by more strenuously urging the prin- 
ciple, in all respects, of dissimilarity to the Greek classic writers. That 
an idea is peculiar to the Christian dispensation, and unknown to the clas- 
sic authors, has not been the basis of my selection in any case, unless at 
the same time there is a phraseology, or a combination of words, which 
is as foreign to the Greeks as the idea itself. If all the ideas which are 
not classical, were to be the guiding principle in our selection, there would 
be no end of examples. But this would not be a fair and proper method 
of proceeding. It is the diction and phraseology, and combinations of 
words, and the sense which is given to the words employed, that I have 
endeavoured to show are not “EdAnvizwtéoa, i. e. not better Greek, or 
more classical Greek, than the epistles of Paul exhibit. 'The reader has 
now the result before him. 

With such a result in view, what matters it whether De Wette, Schulz, 
Seyftarth, Bleek, or Origen himself, tells us that our epistle is almost 
classical Greek, and that all runs smoothly and oratorically on? Bleek 
has, indeed, spoken in a very positive manner on this subject, in his re- 
view of the first edition of my work; but not in a way which affords me 
any satisfaction. He asks ‘how a Christian writer of Jewish origin could 
avoid using Hebrew phraseology, in order to designate religious objects ?” 
I answer at once, that he could not, and did not; and that nothing can 
be plainer, than that our epistle is filled with it. But how does this fact 
prove that the φράσις is better Greek than that of Paul? The question 
is not one concerning the absolute state of Hebraism and unclassical usage, 
but one which respects the relative state of it, viz. whether our epistle is 
more free from it than the acknowledged epistles of Paul. What bearing, 
then, has Bleek’s suggestion on this point? I can see none; for all that 
it goes to show, is, that a Hebrew Chagven would naturally, if not neces- 
sarily, express his ideas of many things pertaining to the Christain re- 
ligion, in a way like that in which the Hebrew Scriptures express the 
like ideas. 

My list of Hebraismsand of unclassical usage (usage οὐχ “Ελληνικωτέρα) 
serves to establish one point, viz. that our epistle abounds greatly in them. 
To make the proof in all respects perfect, I ought perhaps to take some of 
Paul’s epistles, and actually shew that the departures from classical usage 
are not more frequent there. But I content myself, for the present, (after 
more than one examination of some of them in respect to the point in 
question), with denying that they are less frequent in our epistle. The 
burden of proof that they are less frequent, rests on those who assert the 


πω HEBRAISMS OF TMB EPISTLE. 243 


fact that our epistle is more classical Greek. I wait for them to prove 
this allegation by facts produced, not by assertions. These last ought not 
to go current any longer. 

Bleek suggests, also, that ‘the writer of our epistle was a diligent read- 
er of the Septuagint Version, and this must have had an influence on his 
style, Rev. p. 27. Indeed? And what sort of Greek does the Septua- 
gint consist of ? Is it purer than that of Paul? And if the writer of our 
epistle modelled himself after this, must his φράσις be “Ελληνικωτέρα than 
that of Paul? A singular argument truly it is, to allege that the influ- 
ence or imitation of the most corrupt of all Greek extant, will save a 
writer from the imputation of being as Hebraistic and unclassical as 
Paul. 

Bleek intimates, that ‘to produce such words as ἄγγελος and ἔσχατον 
τῶν ἡμερῶν as Hebraisms, is hardly fair, because it would be a mere affec- 
tation of Purism in a writer, not to employ these words in a sense which 
the corresponding Hebrew words had, Rev. p. 96. But may not the 
same remark be made of all the other Hebraisms of the New Testament, 
or of the Septuagint? The question about Hebraism or unclassical usage 
lies, after all, in a narrow compass. When a writer who is a Hebrew, 
employs the word ἄγγελος to designate (like 8272) a heavenly messenger, 
did he not give to this word a shade of meaning’ which of itself it had not 
in the Greek language? This will not be denied. Then, secondly, did 
the meaning which he gave to ἄγγελος, originate, in his mind, from the 
meaning of the Heb. ΠΝΕΔΊ 1. ὝὝΠΙΒ seems equally certain. What 
is this then but Hebraism, true, genuine Hebraism? When a form of 
expression is employed that is unknown to classic Greek, or a sense given 
to a word which the Greek does not give, and in these cases the writer is 
plainly influenced by Hebrew idiom; what is Hebraism, if this be not ? 
And does not ἄγγελος belong to the latter class just named ἢ 

Does not ἔσχατον τῶν ἡμερῶν also belong to the first? Would a mere 
Greek reader even conjecture what the writer of our epistle meant by the 
phrase in Heb. 1:1? He would very naturally have inquired, ‘In the 
last of what days?’ And when told that the phrase means in the last 
times, viz. the times of the Messiah, and that the Hebrews so understood 
nwa MTN, he could well say, ‘This is very different from our Greek 
phraseology. Why not say, ἔν τῷ καιρῷ τῷ ἐσχάτῳ, OY ἐν ἡμέραις τοῦ 
Χριστοῦ, MAT WD? 

After all, too, the use of ἡμέραις itself in such a sense, and in such a 
connection, is Hebraism ; the Greeks seldom or never Goploying it just 
in this way. The Greeks would of course have employed κχαίρός or 
χρόνος. 

In either of these cases what room is there for the allegation of Bleek, 
that ‘the ideas are so peculiar, and so connected with the religious views of 
the author of our epistle, that he could not avoid using the words which 
he has employed ? What difficulty was there in saying ἄγγελος οὐράνιος, 
in a classical way, just as the Greeks said ϑεοὶ οὐράνιοι ; ΟΥ̓ in saying 
οὐρανίων ΟΥ̓ οὐρανίδης 1 1 And why not say, ἐν τούτῳ τῷ καιρῷ τῷ ἔσχάτῳ; 
or ἐν χρόνῳ ἐσχάτῳ τοῦ κόσμουϑ᾽ can see no difficulty ; and if none, 


244 § 32. HEBRAISMS OF THE EPISTLE. 


then the writer of our epistle might, with entire facility, have expressed 
himself here in a classical way, without any affectation of Purism. 

The same, now, may be shewn to be true respecting the greater part 
of the words which I have included in my list of Hebraisms and of un- 
classical usage. For example; I take the words as they offer themselves, 
without selecting for my purpose; Heb. 1: 2, κληρονόμος, lord, ruler, right- 
ful owner and disposer ; the classic sense of the word is, one who receives 
any thing by lot, or by testament. Now was it not easy for the writer of 
our epistle to say here, κύριον mavtay? Comp. Gal. 4:1. So in v. 3, 
could not δύξα, splendour, “have been with perfect ease exchanged for a 
classical word ? Could no word be found in the classics, for the idea 
expressed by the newly coined word μεγαλωσύνη, ν. 83 And was it not 
easy to express in a classical way, the idea conveyed by ἐν ἱψηλοῖς 
=pin22? Was there no convenient word in Greek besides λόγος (2:1), 
to express the idea of commination or command? And does the Greek 
furnish no word for designating miracles or miraculous” powers, except 
δύναμις, y.2:4? Δμᾶ οοι]ά any mere Greek reader possibly understand 
οἰκουμένην μέλλουσαν, ἴῃ 2:5? It were easy to proceed in the same way 
through the list, with questions of the like import; but I forbear. Bleek 
himself, in looking again at this subject, will find there is something more 
to be done, in order to satisfy critical readers, than to make strong asser- 
tions, and append interrogation and exclamation points to extracts which 
he may make from those who differ from him in opinion. 

Still further to contend against the view which I have given above, he 
produces several words, such as ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ, καϑαρισμὸν ενν τῶν 
ἁμαρτιῶν, μεγαλωσύνη, etc.,and asks, ‘ whether, because they are not clas- 
sical, they are therefore to be reckoned as Hebraisms ?’ But in this ques- 
tion, he leaves entirely out of view one professed object of the list of 
words in question. It professes on the face of it to be a list, not of He- 
braisms only, but of unclassical words, 1. e. of words used in an unclassical 
way. Has Mr Bleek, by his interrogation points, shewn the classical 
usage of these words, as employed in our epistle ? If not, then the sub- 
ject remains in statu quo. This is yet to be done, before the φράσις Ἑλλη- 
γικωτέρα of our epistle is established ; for surely this expression of Origen 
means nothing less than purer Greek, better Greek, more classical Greek. 

Over all the rest of the examples which I have produced, Bleek leaps 
with the single affirmation, that ‘almost all of them are like those which 
he has produced,’ and which, as his mode of speaking seems to intimate, 
he has so speedily dispatched. But how? Why by asserting that a 
great part of my examples are not proper Hebraisms. But are there not 
many of them which were not produced as such? Is it not one great 
point in question, to shew that the φράσις is often unclassical 2 And has 
Mr Bleek, in any measure, shewn that this is not true ? 

So long as this is not even attempted, on his part, the point in contro- 
versy is not at all affected ; and I hope for indulgence from the able wri- 
ter whom I am controverting, when I say, that his affirmation (p. 27 of 
his Review), that ‘the language of our epistle is beyond comparison of a 
purer Greek character than that of the epistles of Paul,’ will be believed 
by me, when he actually shews that a greater number of departures from 


§ 32. HEBRAISMS OF THE EPISTLE. 245 


classic usage are found in Paul than in our author. It is proper now to 
insist, that this shall be actually shown, not merely asserted with confidence. 

After a renewed examination of this subject, I make again the appeal 
with boldness, and call upon all those who assert the almost classic style 
and manner of our epistle, to produce more true Hebraisms, and more 
words or idioms foreign to the Greek classics, in any of Paul’s acknowl- 
edged epistles. I will even venture to make another offer; which is, 
that I will shew that some at least of his acknowledged epistles exhibit 
less Hebrew colouring, when they shall have shewn that some of them 
exhibit more. 

It does not signify to beat the air, in this contest. Assertions are one 
thing ; facts are another. If Origen and all the Greek fathers were to 
assert, that our epistle is “Ελληνικώτερα than Paul’s, it could not make it 
so. “Τὸ the work of examination,” would be my reply. Let every crit- 
ic go to this work for himself, if he knows enough of Hebrew idiom to 
do it ;-and the result will be an abiding conviction, that Origen had as 
little reason for the assertion in question, as he had for the adventurous 
remark which he made on the use of the Greek article by the sacred 
writers. Origen’s assertion, and every other man’s, on this subject, can 
be brought to the test; and he who subjects them to this process, I am 
persuaded, will find himself brought, at last, if he will examine impartial- 
ly and fully, to a firm conviction, that they are mere assertions and nothing 
more. 

I add merely, that the list of Hebraisms and unclassical usage, in our 
epistle, would have been much more swelled, if I had not omitted for the 
most part, to repeat the same words, so ἘΠ as I found them repeated 
and used 1 ina Hebraistic or unclassical manner. Such words are ἀδελ- 
pos, ἅγιος, ἁγιάζξω, ἁμαρτία, ἀσϑένεια, δικαίωμα, ἐγκαινίζω, ἐπαγγελία, nod 
ἡμέραν, κληρονόμος, πληρονομέω, κατάπαυσις, λόγος ἀρχῆς, μισϑαποδοσία, 
μεγαλωσύνη, μεσίτης, νεκρός, οἴκος, σάρξ, τελειόω, and others. 

I have one more remark to make, before I quit this topic. The He- 
brew colouring of the Septuagint version, and the unclassical Greek of it 
in general, will be admitted by all critics of any taste or discernment. 
There is, indeed, a very great difference between different parts of this 
version, some of it being absolutely barbarous Greek, while some other 
parts, e. g. the book of Proverbs, is much nearer to the classic style. 
But in nearly the whole of it, certainly in all the prophets and historical 
books, the Greek, even at the best, is palpably different from that of the 
classics. 

With this fact in view, I ask that an impartial critic, laying aside all 
preconceived theories with regard to the style of our epistle, would read 
the whole continuously through, without stopping to see whether it is 
possible to invent some distinction between the style of the epistle itself, 
and that of the quotations from the Septuagint. If he do this, I venture 
to predict, that he will not be able to perceive any difference that would 
ever strike the attention, between the Greek of Septuagint extracts, and 
the surrounding Greek of the author himself. All runs smoothly on. 
No transition is perceived merely from the style. Were it not for the 
formulas of quotations, and the recollection of the Old Testament passa- 


246 ᾧ 32. HEBRAISMS OF THE EPISTLE. 


ges quoted, the reader would never imagine that the nature of the lee 
ment was changed in which he was before moving. And if this be so, 
then where ia the proof that our epistle is better Greek than that of 
Paul? Is Paul less pure than the Septuagint in general? Surely this 
will not be affirmed. That the fact is as [ have stated it, 1 fully believe. 
But then the satisfactory evidence of its correctness must be derived from 
the impartial reading itself of the epistle, by every man who is capable of 
judging with respect to the matter before us. I venture to believe that 
Bleek himself will not refuse his assent to the statement just made. 

I cannot conclude the present section, without adverting once more to 

another topic connected with the preceding one, which seems to me to 
have been treated in a very singular way, by some of the opponents of 
the Pauline origin of the epistle to the Hebrews. I refer to the alleged 
style and manner of the epistle, We are often reminded of the oratori- 
68] manner, of the well rounded periods, of the nicely adjusted phraseol- 
ogy, and particularly of the almost classical use of the connectives and 
particles, which our epistle exhibits. All is said to run on smoothly, ea- 
sily, with little or no ellipsis, without sentences being suspended, or 
change of construction made in them. In short, the whole is a tolerably 
near approach to the manner of well reputed Greek classics.’ 
* One part of this subject 1 have already examined, in §22. 3. It would 
be well for the reader to review this in connection with the present re- 
marks. He will there see how often interrupted and suspended senten- 
ces occur in our epistle, after the manner of Paul. As a sufficient reply 
to all the remarks which have been made on complete, well rounded, and 
flowing periods of the epistle to the Hebrews, and the easy, perspicuous 
manner of it, 1 must beg the reader to consult, and attentively study the 
passages now to be Ἐπ out. 1 begin with Heb. 1: 1—4. Which is 
the main object of assertion, in this complicated and protracted sentence. 
‘God has spoken to us by his Son; his Son is Lord and Creator of all 
things; he is the very image of the Father and endowed with almighty 
power; he made expiation by the offering up of himself for our sins ; 
he is seated on a throne of glory above; and he is far superior to the an- 
gels :’ such are the affirmations all contained in this one complex, involved 
sentence. Which of all these is the writer’s main point, and in what does 
the “ rounding off” of this period consist ? 

Heb. 2:9, ὅπως χάριτι xz. τ. 4. ; to what does this clause relate, or with 
what part τ the preceding context is it connected? Does the writer 
mean, (as he appears to say), that Jesus was crowned with glory and 
honour, that he might by the grace of God taste of death for every man ? 
And if so, what can be the idea conveyed by such a sentiment? Or if 
he does not mean this, but means to say that Jesus was made a little 
lower than the angels, that by the grace of God, etc., i. 6. he was endow- 
ed with a human nature, in order that he might suffer, etc., then why 
was not ὅπως x. τ. A. arranged after ᾿Πησοῦν or after ἀγγέλους 2 

Will the advocates of special perspicuity and rotundity of style in our 
epistle, tell us what the object of 3: 4 is, and what the sentiment actual- 
ly contained in it, and how it contributes to forward the design of the 
writer, i. 6. to aid the sentiment of the context ? 


§ 32. HEBRAISMS OF THE EPISTLE. 247 


Will they shew us with what ἐν τῷ λεγέσϑαι is connected, in 3: 15, 
and what is the occasion of repeating this quotation ? 

In 4:2) καὶ γὰρ x. τ. 4. is an unfinished comparison ; where is this 
completed? In 4: 3—9 is a series of involved sentences, of unfinished 
comparisons, of incomplete and suspended sentences, which scarcely has 
an equal in all the New Testament. Let the reader try his own skill at 
reading and interpreting it, and deciphering the connection of thought 
and reasoning ; and then he will need neither Bleek nor myself to aid 
him in giving his opinion concerning it. 

Is there not a large ellipsis in 5:5? And to whom does ὃς (in 5: 7) 
relate, and to what verb is it the Nominative? If to ἔμαϑεν in v. 9, as 
Dr. Knapp and others make it, then he must allow at least that “ inter- 
rupted” sentences are found in our author. Then again, what is the 
sentiment and object of v. 7 ? 

Is there no difficulty in 6: 1, 2, 4—6, and 17, 18? What sort of a sen- 
tence does Bleek call that in 7:1—3? And where are the rounded pe- 
riods, the connection and the perspicuity of 7: 8—17? In 8:4, to what 
does the εἰ μὲν yao x. τ. 4. refer? The writer had just affirmed, that 
Christ (being a priest) must, like other priests, have some offering to 
make, v. 3. One would naturally expect, that the writer was going on 
with his εἰ μὲν γὰρ x. τ. 4. to shew this ; but if this be the case, is it not a 
difficult matter to render it plain. 

In what way is the sentence in 9: 6—10 to be characterized? It con- 
sists of as many distinct parts as it contains verses; and as to v. 10, it 
seems almost to set at defiance the efforts of all commentators satisfactorily 
to point out its connection, or even to make out its grammatical construc- 
tion. I call upon the advocates of the classic style of our epistle, to pro- 
duce any thing from the writings of Paul, that is more obscure or appa- 
rently disconnected in construction, than this. And what shall be said of 
9: 15—18? Does all run on smoothly here ἢ 

In 9: 27, 28 is a comparison by za’ ὅσον... .. οὕτω καὶ x. τ. Δ. Inthe 
latter member of this, the principal stress lies upon ἐν δευτέρου χωρὶς 
ἁμαρτίας οφϑήσεται x. t. λ.; but where is the antithesis to this in the first 
member of the comparison ἢ 

In 10 : 5—10 is a sentence, or sentences, which in point of involution 
and obscurity may be compared with any that the reader pleases to col- 
late, which he can find in the epistles of Paul. Let him inquire special- 
ly as to the “rounding and finish” in vs. 9, 10, with their connection. 

Examine the sentence beginning with 10:19, which Dr. Knapp has 
pointed as ending with v. 25; and rightly if the grammatical series, 
mooosoyomeda....xotéyousy....xat κατανοῶμεν be regarded as deter- 
mining the boundaries of a sentence. But then, the “rounding off” and 
the “oratorical finish” of this sentence, and the perspicuity of it, (particu- 
larly of v. 20), is what yet remains to be exhibited. 

In 12: 25, how is the τὸν ἐπὶ γῆς the proper antithesis of τὸν ax” οὖρα- 
vor 2 a 

In 13:11, one would expect wy γὰρ κ. τ. 2. to be an introduction to 
something confirming the preceding verse ; but he finds the matter of the 
eleventh verse entirely foreign to the subject of the tenth. 


248 ᾧ 33. ALEXANDRINE HUE OF THE EPISTLE. 


It were easy to increase the list of difficulties, such as 1 have now 
touched upon, and such as are presented in the preceding part of this sec- 
tion. I might shew, that the classical rules of the article are not always 
observed; e. σ. Heb. 1:1, ἐν υἱῷ, where Chrysostom and Theophylact 
have filled up what is manifestly wanting, by saying, διὰ τοῦ υἱοῦ. So 
in the use of καί, of γάρ, of πάλιν, and in some cases of μέν and δέ, it were 
easy to point out passages the classical vindication of which would occa- 
sion trouble enough. 

But I forbear. While the testimonies above produced remain, every 
one can judge for himself who has ability to judge. 

The difference between my mode of proceeding and that of Bleek 
and some others, relative to the point before us, is this: I appeal to facts ; 
they deal in categorical assertions, and in exclamation and interrogation 
points affixed to the sentiments of their opponents. And so long as the 
controversy rests in this position, I cheerfully submit it to the public. 
Having spent the best part of my life in explaining the epistles of Paul, 1 
still confess myself unable to find in him more Hebraism, more departure 
from classical usage as to the choice of words or the meaning given to 
them, more involved “ unpertodic” sentences, or more obscurity in any 
respect, than are to be found in our epistle. 


§ 33. Alexandrine hue of the epistle. 


Eichhorn and others, who have strenuously insisted that Paul‘is not 
the author of our epistle, have endeavoured to show that it is probably of 
Alexandrine origin. But the arguments adduced for this purpose, seem 
to me incapable of standing the test of a critical examination. 

(1) ‘The author of the epistle to the Hebrews treats the ancient Jew- 
ish Scriptures as containing a mysterious and secret sense concealed un- 
der the words. He also regards the various ritual observances of the 
ancient law, only as types and shadows of things under the Christian 
dispensation, Heb. 10: 1. 9: 8. Philo of Alexandria expresses the same 
views, De confus. Lingg. p. 348. Eich. Einleit. p. 442. 

That the general views of the author of our epistle in regard to the 
meaning and object of Jewish rites, coincided with those of Philo, I 
should not be disposed to deny. But who is going to shew us, that these 
were not founded in truth? [Ὁ as I believe, the Jewish dispensation had 
its origin in divine communications and directions, there can be no ra- 
tional doubt that it had some important end in view. Surely now the 
sacrifices and various rites of external purification, could never, in and of 
themselves, be deemed an object worthy of special divine interposition 
and command. ‘Their connection with some higher and more spiritual ob- 
ject and end, was what stamped their highest real value upon them. In 
any other point of view, they could scarcely be thought worthy of the 
character of him who requires men to worship him in spirit and in truth. 

That a man of such enlarged views as Philo should have seen and felt 
this, and that Paul should have done the same, is not a matter of wonder 
to any one, who considers the tendency of an enlightened mind to look on 


§ 33. ALEXANDRINE HUF OF THE EPISTLE. 949 


« a re ᾿Ξ = ---- 


the spiritual design οἱ ΜΌΝ as yes ithe most important and inter- 
esting part of it. 

What can be more diverse, however, than the particular form which 
Philo gives to his speculations on this subject, and that in which the ideas 
of our author are developed? Philo allegorizes on every thing, and eve- 
ry where, almost without distinction. The historical facts in the book of 
Genesis, the connection of Abraham with Sarah and Hagar, and all other 
occurrencies related in the Pentateuch, are, if occasion presents an op- 
portunity, converted into allegory, and made the theme of exuberant 
speculative mysticism. Neither is there one word in all, which has any 
relation to the Messiah or to his atoning sacrifice. 

How very different the types and shadows presented by our epistle are, 
the intelligent and critical reader need not be informed. All is brought 
to bear on one single point—the death of Christ, the propitiatory sacrifice 
for sin made by it, and the effectual reconciliation to God accomplished in 
this manner. 

To reason then as Kichhorn has done, is just the same as to bring for- 
ward the allegation, that Philo believed in the existence of one supreme 
God ; that the writer of the epistle to the Hebrews did the same; and then 
draw the inference, that the writer of this epistle must therefore have liv- 
ed, or at least been nurtured, at Alexandria. I venture to say, that there 
never has been so rational an account of the object of the Jewish ritual, as 
the author of our epistle gives ; nor one so worthy of the great Author of 
the old and the new dispensations, nor so consonant with the fundamen- 
tal maxim that ‘God is a spirit, and requires men to worship him in a spir- 
itual manner.’ 

(2) ‘Philo intimates, that the higher mysteries of the Jewish religion 
are only for the initiated, μύσταις. In like manner our epistle, 5: 11—6: 
3. Einleit. p. 444.’ 

I can find no trace of reserve in our epistle, in regard to the ἀμύστοις 
or uninitiated. 'The expression of deep regret, that those whom the wri- 
ter addresses had not made higher acquisitions of religious knowledge, I 
can easily find. Severe reproof for such negligence, I see; but not a 
word about any distinctions between μύσται and ἄμυστοι, initiated and un- 
initiated, am I able to discover. Philo, in respect to this, is more than 
half a Grecian Platonist; but the writer of our epistle practises no con- 
cealment at all. 

(3) «The Alexandrine author of the book of Wisdom has praised wis- 
dom on account of its nature and qualities, and then adduced historical 
examples to illustrate all this, Wisd. r—1x. 10: 1—16:1. So the author 
of the epistle to the Hebrews, after urging and eulogizing faith, adduces 
historical examples of it, in chap. x1., in order more strongly to impress 
its importance, p. 445.’ 

To which one may reply, that from the days of the author of our epis- 
tle down to the present time, almost every practical writer on religion, 
and every preacher on the subject of faith, has done the same. But does 
this prove that every such writer and preacher was born or nurtured at 
Alexandria? Can a thing so obvious to the common sense of all men as 


32 


259 § 33. ALEXANDRINE HUE OF THE BPISTLE. 


the appropriate method of treating a subject, be adduced to establish a spe- 
cial relation between any two men as to country or education ? 

(4) ‘Many thoughts and expressions, in the epistle to the Hebrews, re- 
semble those of Philo, p. 446 seq.’ 

So Eichhorn, who has occupied several pages with detailing expres- 
sions which afford such resemblances. So Schulz, who has occupied 
fourteen pages with alleged parallels of this nature, printed in opposite 
columns. So Bleek also, who (in his Review) accuses me of ‘being de- 
clamatory, and of making several strange assertions, which, if they do not 
betray want of knowledge, manifest too great haste, and need only to be 
quoted in order to be refuted for German readers p. 28. 

I have examined the parallels of Dr. Schulz de novo, on the present oc- 
casion, neither in haste, nor without endeavouring to see what the nature 
of the proof in question is. I must still be indulged in making the same 
general remarks which were made in the first edition of this work, ap- 
pealing to readers of discernment whether they are “declamatory,” and 
‘waiting the issue of their judgment without agitation. 

Every considerate man, who makes this examination, will very natural- 
ly call to mind, that the author of our epistle and Philo were contempo- 
raries. At least, the former must have come upon the stage, before the 
latter left it. Then, both were educated as Jews ; both were deeply read 
in the Jewish Scriptures, above all in the law of Moses. Both thought, 
reasoned, and expressed themselves as Hebrews, writing in Greek. Both 
had the same views, fundamentally, of the great points of the religion of 
Moses. Both had high moral feelings, and a deep interest in them: 
Could it be possible, now, that there should not be points of resemblance 
between Philo and our author, when writing on similar subjects? Sure- 
ly not, any more than that there should not be points of similarity, be- 
tween the sentiments of a Christian divine in any particular age and 
country, and those of another of the like views, near the same age, and 
in a different country. 

Both Philo and our author often appeal to the Jewish Scriptures. And 
because they deduce from them like sentiments, does this prove that our 
author must have been of the Alexandrine school? Why is not the ar- 
gument just as good the other way, viz. to prove that Philo must have 
belonged to some other country, i. e. to that in which our author lived ? 
All that such resemblance can prove, is, that both belonged to the Mosaic 
school ; and who will deny this? 

Nearly all the striking parallels in Schulz’s list, p. 265 seq., (abridged 
and extracted by Bleek, p. 998 seq.), are of the kind just mentioned ; i. e. 
they have their origin either in the words of the Old Testament, or in 
the facts which it relates. FE. g. 

Heb. 4:14 ἀρχιερέα μέγαν; Philo, μέγας ἀρχιερεύς; both from the 
ΘΔ ἸΠΞ3. of the Hebrew Scriptures. So in Heb. 5: 2,5, Moses πιστὸς 
ἐν ὕλῳ τῷ οἴκῳ αὐτοῦ, Which is twice produced by Schulz from Philo, in 
order to shew that our epistle has an Alexandrine hue. So again in the 
parallels to Heb. 4: 14. 6: 13,19. 7:1. 8: 5, ete. 

In many other passages, there is merely a coincidence of thought, in 
some one particular or on some important subject, while the generality of 


§ 33, ALEXANDRINE HUE OF THE EPISTLE. 251 


expression is as diverse as in any writers whatever. KE. g. Heb. 1:3, 
φέρων... τὰ πάντα τῷ ῥήματι τῆς δυνάμεως αὑτοῦ; Philo, ὃ τὰ μὲν ὄντα 
φέρων, καὶ τὰ πάντα γεννῶν, and ῥήματι ὃ ϑεὸς πάντα ποιεῖ. Heb. 4: 12 
is cited, and as a parallel of it several passages in which the word of God 
is spoken of as τομεύς ; in both authors the original is Is. 49:2 comp. 11: 
4; in all other respects, the course of thought and language in Philo is 
exceedingly diverse from that in our epistle. 

So in 4: 13, καὶ οὐκ ἔστι κτίσις ἀφανὴς ἐνώπιον αὑτοῦ, the parallel of 
which, in Philo, is made to be, ὃ ϑεῖος λόγος ὀξυδερκέστατός ἐστιν, ὡς 
πάντα ἐφορᾷν εἶναι ἱκανός κι τι. As to language, the resemblance is faint 
enough ; as to thought, the idea is common to the two writers, that God, 
or his word, is omniscient. Must a man be brought up at Alexandria, in 
order to say this ? 

In other passages of Schulz, the resemblance consists merely in appeal 
to the same facts related in the Scriptures; e. g. Heb. 7: 1—4, and the 
passages from Philo, all of which, like the passage in our epistle, are de- 
duced from the narration in Genesis. So in respect to Heb. 7:27, 0 
[Χριστὸς] οὐκ ἔχει καϑ' ἡμέραν ἀνάγκην κ. τ. A; ; the parallel in Philo is 
said to be, ἀ ἀρχιερεὺς. νον κατὰ τοὺς γόμους εὐχάς τε καὶ ϑυσίας τελῶν nod 
ἑκάστην ἡμέραν x. T.4.; the common source of both writers being the 
Mosaic statutes in regard to this subject; and surely the diction here is 
diverse enough to render the imitation of the one by the other quite in- 
credible. 

Of this nature are nearly the whole of the instances produced by 
Schulz. Who now can gather from such a passage as the following, 
any evidence that the writer of our epistle belonged to Alexandria, and 
was conversant with the writings of Philo: ? 

Philo: : τῆς κιβωτοῦ ἐπίϑεμα..... τὸ λεγόμενον ἐν ἱεραῖς βίβλοις ἱλαστήριον 
sees τὸ ἐπίϑεμα τὸ προσαγορευόμενον ἱλαστήριον, βάσις ἐπὶ τῶν πτηνῶν 
δυεῖν, ae. «προσαγορεύεται Χερουίμ se DRS Epistle to the Hebrews: 
ὑπεράνω δὲ αὑτῆς Χερουβὶμ τῆς δόξης, κατασκιάζοντα τὸ ἱλαστήριον. 

And must a man, then, have lived at Alexandria, and have read Philo, 
in order to speak of the ἱλαστήριον and of the Xegoufiu? And if these 
two technical words, which every Jew on earth that could utter a Greek 
sentence, and had heard of the Hebrew tabernacle or temple, must have 
known, are taken out of the parallel in question, where is the “ quid Phi- 
loneum” which is so anxiously sought for ? 

Put now out of consideration all the necessary reseinblances, which, 
treating of the same subjects, receiving substantially the same education, 
living in the same age, belonging to the same peculiar people, and (above 
all) appealing to the same divine book as the source of ideas and expres- 
sions and facts—leave all these things out of sight, and then, I venture to 
ask, what is the special resemblance left between Philo and the writer of 
our epistle? And confident as Bleek appears to be on this question, I 
have no fears as to the answer which will be given by every impartial 
judge, who is competent to examine the subject. Can any man read a 
page of Philo’s Greek, and then a page of our epistle, without saying that 
the difference is as striking, (with the exceptions made above), as between 
our epistle and any of the later Greek classical writers? What can be 


252 § 33. ALEXANDRINE HUE OF THE EPISTLE. 


more remote from our epistle, than the swollen, forced, mystical, and fre- 
quently unnatural and bombastic periods of Philo Judaeus ? 

The writers whom I am now controverting, are indebted to J. B. 
Carpzoff, (Exercitt. Sac. in Pauli epist. ad Hebraeos, ex Philone, Alexan- 
drino, Helmst. 1750), for the materials which they have wrought up in- 
to the form of an argument for the Alexandrine origin of our epistle. 
But they do not once seem to have reflected, that if the same iron dili- 
gence which Carpzoff has exhibited in his work, had been applied to the 
acknowledged epistles of Paul in the same way, as large a harvest of re- 
semblances might have been gathered. In regard to allegory, for exam- 
ple, (which is a main point of alleged resemblance), what could be more 
obvious, than to appeal to 1 Cor. 10: 1—6. 10: 11. Rom. 5: 14. 1 Cor. 
15: 45—47. 2 Cor. 3: 13—18. Gal, 4: 22—31; also to Col. 2: 16, 17. 
Gal. 3: 23—25. 4: 1—5? May it not be said of these passages, (as Je- 
rome has often and erroneously been represented as saying of our epistle, 
and which has so often been appealed to with confidence), ‘spirant quid 
Philoneum? Let the experiment be made by another Carpzoff, and I 
venture to predict, that, assuming the principle of argument which is as- 
sumed by Eichhorn, Schulz, and Bleek, we may easily shew that Paul 
himself must have been au Alexandrian, and been educated in the Philo- 
nean school. Bleek says (Rev. p. 28), that “it is necessary only to cite 
the above statements in order to refute them, for a German scholar.” It 
may be so, for those German scholars who have made up their minds on 
the whole subject, by virtue of a priori argument; but it will not be so, I 
trust, on the part of others, whether German, American, or English. It 
has not been so with such men as Storr, Hug, and a multitude of others 
who could be easily named. Hug, in the second edition of his Introduc- 
tion to the New Testament, says, (in reference to the very parallelisms in 
question of Dr. Schulz), “The uniformity of the objects is here the ground 
of mutual resemblance [as to style], p. 463.” 

For the present, I tender the labouring oar to those who deny that as 
frequent resemblances between Philo and Paul may be found, as between 
Philo and our epistle. I make this exception only as to the position, 
(and every candid man will allow me to make this), viz. that from the ve- 
ry nature of the subject in our epistle, which ex professo treats of Levitical 
ordinances, etc., more frequent recurrence must necessarily be made to 
those ordinances, than in epistles where such a subject is not treated of. 
Now as Philo often handles the same topics, (the same in various re- 
spects), of course there must be a frequent analogy between the two 
writers who appeal to the same source, But as to all which does not 
come under this category, I call on Bleek, or any other opponent of the 
Pauline origin of our epistle, to shew that there is less resemblance in 
Paul to the writings of Philo, than in our epistle. It will be more to the 
purpose to accept this challenge, than it will to assert, that ‘the consider- 
ations which are suggested by his opponents, only need to be quoted in 
order to be refuted,’ i. e. for his own countrymen. On this side of the 
Atlantic at least it is true, as we are accustomed to think, that refutation 
must be made out in another way. 

One hint more, and I dismiss the subject. Is not the Septuagint, Alex- 


§ 34. RESULT. 263 


andrine Greek? Are not the Apocryphal books connected with the Old 
Testament, Alexandrine Greek? Does not the whole New ‘Testament 
Greek bear a resemblance to the style of these two classes of books ? 
Are not Paul’s epistles Hebrew Greek, like all the rest? How can it be 
shewn, then, that the author of our epistle was an Alexandrian, because 
he writes Alexandrine Greek? If the argument be valid for this pur- 
pose which Eichhorn and Schulz employ, then may we prove that all 
the New Testament writers were Alexandrians. Quod nimium probat, 
nihil probat. 


§ 34. Result. 


The conclusion to be deduced from the whole of the preceding exam- 
ination, seems to be, that the arguments drawn from the style and diction 
of the epistle to the Hebrews, are not to be relied on as deciding the ques- 
tion against the Pauline origin of it. Cases of this nature cannot be de- 
termined by assertion. Allegations made for such a purpose, if found to 
be contradicted by facts, cannot fail, in the end, to pass for nothing more 
than allegations. : 

One other thing may be said with truth, which has an important bear- 
ing on this question. If the internal evidence is altogether insufficient to 
decide the point at issue in the negative, the external is equally so. In- 
deed, the historical evidence against the Pauline origin of our epistle is, as 
we have seen, so little, so vague, and for the most part so indirect, that we 
may well say, ‘ the objections have never been of a historical nature, but 
of a conjectural one.’ They have arisen more from taste and feeling, than 
from tradition or testimony. Accordingly, in all the objections of the 
western churches, we do not find a single instance of appeal to ancient 
tradition or historical evidence as the ground of them; as Hug has most 
truly and forcibly remarked. The objections evidently belong to that 
class which arise from feeling and taste, or from the exigencies of reli- 
gious dispute. Why then should we attribute much weight to them ? 

On the whole, I must acquiesce in the opinion of Origen, which I re- 
peat as the general voice of antiquity; IT IS NOT WITHOUT REASON THE 
ANCIENTS HAVE HANDED IT DOWN TO US THAT THIS EPISTLE IS Paut’s. 
Nor should I differ materially from those, who (with Eusebius) can say: 
Tov δὲ Παύλουπρόδηλοι καὶ cagets αἵ δεκατέσσαρες, fourteen epistles 
are CLEARLY and cERTAINLY Paul’s. I consider, however, the form of 
the proposition, as stated by Origen, to be the most becoming in regard 
to a point so controverted, and to contain for substance all which it is ne- 
cessary or expedient for us to assert and to believe. 


§ 35. Was Barnabas the Author 2 


Whoever is satisfied with the arguments in favour of the Pauline ori- 
gin of our epistle, may dispense with the examination, whether any other 
person than this apostle has a title to be considered as the author. As past 


254 § 35. WAS BARNABAS THE AUTHOR ? 

experience, however, must lead one to believe, that unanimity in regard to. 
this subject is not yet to be expected, but that some may still incline to 
adopt opinions about the authorship of our epistle which were avowed 
or defended in ancient times ; it seems to be necessary, briefly at least, to 
examine the claims of some others, as well as those of Paul. 

The doubts raised in ancient times, whether Paul wrote the epistle to 
the Hebrews, occasioned conjectures with regard to several other persons. 
Among the remains of ancient Christian writings, we find some hints that 
Barnabas was the author of our epistle. We first meet with these in the 
essay of Tertullian, de Pudicitia, ὁ. 201. “ Extat,” says he, “ enim et Bar- 
nabae titulus ad Hebraeos,” i. e. there is extant an epistle of Barnabas, in- 
scribed to the Hebrews. 'This is simple assertion, without any reference to 
the reasons why Tertullian supposes Barnabas to be the author. He does 
not intimate whether he gathers it from tradition, or assumes it as a matter 
of mere opinion. He speaks of it as a thing which he believes ; which 
seems to imply that others in that quarter of the church were probably 
of the same opinion. But we find no mention of this opinion again until 
so late as the end of the 4th century, when Jerome adverting to it says, 
-“ Most [of the Latins] believe that the epistle to the Hebrews belongs to 
Barnabas, or Clement ;” see Berth. p, 2953, and Jerome in his Epist. ad 
Dardanum. Again, in his catalogue of ecclesiastical writers, under the 
word Paulus he says: “'The epistle to the Hebrews is thought not to be 
his, on account of the discrepancy of the style ; but to belong to Barna- 
bas, according to Tertullian; or to the evangelist Luke, according to 
some; or to Clement of Rome.” 'The same thing Philastrius (A. D. 380) 
repeats, Haeres, c. 898, And in modern times Cameron and Schmidt 
have undertaken to defend the hypothesis, that Barnabas was the author 
of this epistle ; Bertholdt, ubi supra. 

This is all the evidence which history gives us in respect to this sub- 
ject; and this surely is too slender to build any opinion upon, which can 
lay claim to critical confidence. 

But all hope of defending this opinion with any degree of plausibility 
is removed, by a comparison of the epistle to the Hebrews with an epistle 
of Barnabas still extant, and undoubtedly the same that was extant in the 
days of Tertullian, as the quotations from it by the ancient Christian 
fathers evince. I produce here a few short extracts from this epistle, to 
enable every one to judge for himself, whether the author of the one 
epistle can be rationally supposed to have written the other. 

Chap. IX. Madere οὗν, τέχνα, περὶ πάντων πλουσίως, OTL ᾿Αβραὰμ, 6 
πρῶτος περετομὴν δοὺς, ἐν πνεύματι “προβλέψας εἰς τὸν υἱὸν περιέτεμε, λαβὼν 
τριῶν γραμμάτων δόγματα" λέγει γάρ' Καὶ περιέτεμεν “Αβραὰμ ἐ ἐκ τοῦ οἴχου 
αὐτοῦ ἄνδρας δέκα καὶ ὀκτὼ καὶ τριακοσίους. Tis οὖν 7 dod sion τούτῳ 
γνῶσις; ; Modsre τοὺς δεκαοκτὼ πρώτους, εἶτα τοὺς τριακοσίους. Τὺ δὲ δέκα 
ὀκτὼ, ἰῶτα δέκα, ἦτα ὀκτώ: ἔχεις ᾿Ιησοῦν: ὅτι δὲ σταυρὸς ἐν τῷ T ἔμελλεν 
ἔχειν τὴν χάριν, λέγει καὶ, Τριακοσίους. Anyhow οὖν τὸν μὲν Ἰησοῦν ἕν τοῖς 
δυσὶ γράμμασι. καὶ ἐν ἑνὶ, τὸν σταυρύγ. Οἷδεν ὃ τὴν ἔμφυτον δωρεὰν τῆς 
διδαχῆς αἰτοῦ Avene ἕν ἡμῖν. Οὐδεὶς γνησιώτερον ἔμαϑεν ἀπ΄ ἐμοῦ λόγον" 
ἀλλὰ οἶδα ὅτι ἄξιοι ἐστὲ ὑμεῖς" i. 6. children, learn abundantly in regard to 


§ 35. WAS BARNABAS THE AUTHOR? 250 


all things; for Abraham, who first instituted circumcision, practised this 
rite, looking forward in the Spirit to the Son, receiving the doctrine of 
the three letters. For [the Scripture] says, And Abraham circumcised, 
of his household, three hundred and eighteen men. What instruction is 
imparted by this? Learn as to the first eighteen, then as to the three 
hundred. As to eighteen, ἰῶτα signifies ten, and jt eight; this means, 
Jesus. And because the cross, signified by T, would possess grace, it says 
three hundred. It points out J esus, therefore, by the two letters, and the 
cross by one. He knows this, who has conferred upon us the engrafted 
gift of his doctrine. No one has learned more genuine doctrine of me; 
but I know that ye are worthy of it.”  Cotelerius, Pat. Aposto]. Tom. I. 
Ρ. 28. 

So then, because Abraham circumcised three hundred and eighteen 
persons, (which by the way is not said in the Scriptures, see Gen. 17: 
23—27, comp. Gen. 14:14, which gave occasion to the mistake), the 
system of gospel truth is disclosed in this mysterious number ; and this 
because i@ta stands for len, τα for eight, and ταῦ for three hundred, i. e. 
here is Jesus, and he crucified. Where in all the New Testament is any 
thing like such egregious trifling as this ? 

See now, how the same Barnabas can explain the ceremony of the red 
heifer, the ashes of which were sprinkled upon offenders. After stating 
the ceremony, and that the ashes were _Sprinkled by three children, he 
thus proceeds: Ὅ μόσχος οὗτός ἐστιν ὃ ᾿Ιησοῦς" οἵ προσφερόντες, ἄνδρες 
ἁμαρτωλοὶ, οὗ ; προσενέγκαντες αὐτὸν ἐπὶ σφαγήν" εἶτα οὐκέτι ἄνδρες, οὐκέτι 
ἁμαρτωλῶν ἣ δόξα. Οἱ δὲ δαντίζοντες, παϊδὲς, εὐαγγελιζόμενουν ἡμῖν τὴν 
ἄφεσιν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν, καὶ τὸν ἁγνισμὸν τῆς καρδίας, οἷς ἔδωκε τοῦ εὐαγγελίου 
τὴν ἐξουσίαν, (οὖσι δεκαδύο εἰς μαρτύριον τῶν φυλῶν, ὅτι δεκαδύο αἵ φυλαὶ 
τοῦ ᾿Ισραὴλ), εἰς τὸ κηρύσσειν. Διὰ τί δὲ τρεῖς σταΐδες οἵ φαντίζοντες ; Εἰς 
μαρτύριον ᾿Αβφραὰμ καὶ ᾿Ισαὰκ καὶ Ἰακὼβ, ot οὗτοι μεγάλοι τῷ ϑεῷ. Ὅτι δὲ 
τὸ ἔριον ἐπὶ τὸ ξύλον ; Ὅτι ἣ βασιλεία τοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ ἐπὺ τῷ ξύλῳ: διότι οὗ ἐλπί- 
ζοντες εἰς αὐτὸν ζήσονται, εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα. Ava τέ δὲ τὸ ἔριον καὶ τὸν ὕσσωπον; 
Ὅτι ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ αὐτοῦ ἡμέραι ἔσονται πονηραὶ, καὶ ῥυπαραὶ, ἐν αἷς ἡμεῖς 
σωϑησόμεϑα: ὅτι καὶ ἀλγῶν τὴν σάρχο διὰ τοῦ ῥύπου τοῦ ὑσσώπου ἰᾶται. 
Καὶ διὰ τοῦτο οὕτω γενόμενα, ἡμῖν μέν ἐστι φανερὰ, ἐκείνοις δὲ σκοτεινά" 
ὅτι οὐκ ἤκουαν φωνῆς τοῦ κυρίου. 

But enough. If all were cited, which betrays a feeble and puerile 
mind, the whole epistle must be transcribed. Let him who needs fur- 
ther argument on this subject, peruse the whole epistle to the Hebrews, 
and then read through the epistle of Barnabas. It is impossible that 
he should not feel the almost indescribable difference between the two 
writers. 

Here then is a case, where the possibility of mistake in judging is very 
small. The difference between this writer and him who wrote the epis- 
tle to the Hebrews, in respect to style, precision, clearness, energy, brevi- 
ty—in a word, every thing which characterizes any writing—is heaven- 
wide. The most obtuse perception cannot fail to discern it. It is a 
hopeless case to plead the cause of a hypothesis like this. 

The question whether the Barnabas who is said to be the author of the 
epistle from which quotations are made above, was the same that is men- 


256 δ 356. WAS LUKE THE AUTHOR? 


tioned in the Acts of the apostles, and in the epistles of Paul, is one about 
which critics are divided. ‘The majority seem to be in favour of the 
negative. The principal reasons are of an internal nature, viz. the con- 
tents of the epistle ; which seem to be unworthy of him who stood in 
such a near and dear relation to Paul. One almost spontaneously adopts 
this opinion, from the mere reading of the epistle. But whether Barnabas, 
the companion of Paul, wrote this epistle or not, whoever did write it, he 
surely was not the author of the epistle to the Hebrews. <A greater dif- 
ference in writing can scarcely be even imagined. 

If the apostolic Barnabas were not the author in question, then we have 
no writing of his with which we can compare our epistle, and of course 
no means of judging in this way. And as to the testimony of Tertullian 
in respect to Barnabas, it appears at most only to give the opinion of the 
churches in Proconsular Africa; inasmuch as Origen and Eusebius know 
nothing of such an opinion. 


§ 36. Was Luke the author 2 


The first suggestion among the ancient fathers, that Luke had any part 
in the composition of the epistle to the Hebrews, is found in a fragment 
of Clement of Alexandria preserved by Eusebius (Ecc. Hist. VI. 14), in 
which Clement asserts, that “ Paul wrote the epistle to the Hebrews in 
the Hebrew tongue, and that Luke carefully translated it into the Greek ;” 
see note p. 83. The same opinion or tradition Origen mentions thus: 
“If I may give my opinion, I should say, The thoughts are the apostle’s ; 
but the phraseology and composition belong to some one who relates 
what the apostle said, and as it were comments on the words of his mas- 
ter. But who wrote [i.e. wrote down] the epistle, God only knows. 
Report which has come down to us, says, either that Clement of Rome’ 
wrote it, or that Luke the Evangelist did,” p. 87 supra. 

Both Bertholdt and Eichhorn have adduced Origen as asserting, that 
report attributed the epistle to the Hebrews to Luke as the real author ; 
which the context in Origen by no means allows. I cannot but under- 
stand him as saying merely, that ‘the ancients had a report, that either 
Luke or Clement wrote down the epistle ;) which corresponds with the 
opinion of Clement of Alexandria, Origen’s teacher in early life. We 
have seen that afterwards, among the Latin churches, either Luke, or 
Clement, was regarded as the real author of this epistle ; for so the testi- 
mony of Jerome and Philastrius, cited in the preceding section, would 
seem to indicate. 

We have no historical ground, then, on which we can build the opin- 
ion, that Luke was the author of this epistle. An uncertain tradition of 
the fourth century is surely insufficient. And even if Origen be under- 
stood as asserting, that tradition, in his day, assigned the composition of 
our epistle to Luke; he also asserts, at the same time, that traditionary 
testimony was at variance with itself, as one party assigned it to Clement 
of Rome. He evidently credits neither the one nor the other; at least, 


§37. WAS CLEMENT OF ROME THE AUTHOR ! 257 


not in such a way as to be fully persuaded in his own mind ; for he says 
“Who wrote down the epistle, τὸ μὲν ἀλεϑὲς ϑεὸς οἷδε." 

The same uncertainty both Jerome and Philastrius exhibit, in the tes- 
timony to which allusion has just been made. 

It is no doubt true, that the style of Luke approximates much nearer to 
that of the epistle to the Hebrews, than the style of the epistle attributed 
to Barnabas ; so that a comparison in this respect, does not lead to so clear 
and satisfactory a result in this case asin that. But the situation of Luke, 
(born and educated abroad, as he was, and never having resided long in 
Palestine), would hardly lead one to believe that he was so deeply versed 
in Rabbinical lore, and in Jewish feelings and modes of thinking, as the 
author of the epistle to the Hebrews must have been. Besides, it is cer- 
tain, (at least it would seem to be so), from the whole tenor of our epis- 
tle, that the author of it must have been a Hebrew. But from Col. 4: 14, 
comp. 4: 10, it appears plainly that Luke was a Hellenist. 

The main difficulty, however, is the want of any external evidence that 
Luke was the author. And as there are, at least, no internal circum- 
stances or evidence from style which speak much in favour of such an 
opinion, it must be abandoned as improbable and altogether unsupported. 


§ 37. Was Clement of Rome the author 2 


Origen is the first who mentions Clement as the possible writer of the 
epistle to the Hebrews. In what sense he does this, has been already 
considered. Jerome and Philastrius, long afterwards, mention that some 
in the Latin churches attributed the epistle to the Hebrews to Clement of 
Rome. The evidence of this from testimony, then, is not entitled to any 
degree of credit, sufficient to create serious doubts whether Clement may 
not have been the author. 

The internal evidence, drawn from a comparison of the epistle to the 
Hebrews with Clement’s first epistle to the Corinthians, by no means 
favours the supposition in question. Clement has often cited the epistle 
to the Hebrews. The manner in which he does this, seems to afford 
pretty good evidence, that he did not write that epistle himself; for, as 
we have already seen, he appeals to it as Scripture, in order to establish 
and confirm the sentiments which he is inculcating, and in the same man- 
ner as he does elsewhere to the other Scriptures.* Is this to be sup- 
posed, in case he himself wrote that epistle? Did Clement attribute 
scriptural authority to his own epistle? Or did the church whom he 
addressed, attribute scriptural authority to any epistles but to those of an 
apostle ? Does he any where in his letter appeal to other epistles than 


* Bleek (Comm. Vol. I. p. 411) says, that‘ the relation of the passages in 
Clement, which are cited from the epistle to the Hebrews, is such that we must 
regard it as much more probable that he quoted from our epistle, than that he 
copied himself.’ Yetin his Review of my work, p. 28, he has appended two 
interrogation points to the like sentiment quoted from me. He will pardon me 
for asking, whether a sentiment can pass for correct on the east side of the At- 
lantic, and need double questioning on the west of it. 


33 


258 § 38. WAS SYLVANUS THE AUTHOR? 


such? The obvious answer to these inquiries determines the question, 
whether Clement wrote the epistle to the Hebrews, in the negative. 

But further. The discrepancy of style is so great between the epistle 
of Clement and that to the Hebrews, as to make it sufliciently evident 
that both did not proceed from the same pen. I refer not merely to the 
choice of words, (although this might be easily shewn to be considerable) , 
but to the general spirit and manner of the execution. There is an ener- 
gy, originality, vividness of conception, and intensity of feeling, displayed 
every where in the epistle to the Hebrews, which is wholly wanting in 
Clement’s epistle. This is plain, kind, faithful ; but it is moderate, com- 
paratively tame, made up of many extracts from the Old Testament and 
from Paul, and of imitations as close as they could well be of the latter. 
But what a wide difference there is, after all, between the original writer 
and the imitator, every one must feel who reads both. The one is a fee- 
ble rivulet gliding gently along, which, but for the occasional contribu- 
tions it receives from other streams, would become absorbed by the earth 
over which it passes, and cease to flow; the other a mighty stream, over- 
flowing all its antes, supplying with water and fertilizing all the country 
through which it passes. It really seems to me, that a man might as well 
mistake a canal on the banks of the Nile for the noble river itself, as mis- 
take Clement for the author of the epistle to the Hebrews. 


§38. Was Silvanus the author 3 


The belief that such was the case, is recent. Mynster and Boehme, 
(both living authors [ believe), have assayed to defend this opinion. 

Mynster grounds it on the supposition, that our epistle was sent to the 
Galatian church along with the one inscribed to the Galatians, although 
not written by Paul but by Sylvanus, who was in company with him. 
In this last respect he differs from Storr, while he agrees with him as to 
other important circumstances. 

If the reader will reperuse § 5, and especially the contents of No. 8 in 
that section, he will see that the internal evidence of our epistle decides 
conclusively against such a supposition as that of Mynster. 

In regard to Boebme, his opinion is built on the assumed resemblance 
of the first epistle of Peter to the epistle to the Hebrews. Both of these 
he regards as written by Silvanus or Silas, who was an intimate friend 
and companion of Paul, Acts 15: 40 seq. 16:19 seq. 17:14, 15. 18: 5. 
2 Cor. 1:19. 1 Thess. 1:1. 2 Thess. 1: 1; and also of Peter, 1 Pet. 5: 
12. But as the alleged authorship is incapable of any satisfactory proof, 
so it seems also to be destitute of any probability. As to the likeness of 
style between the two epistles (Hebrews and | Peter), I must appeal to 
what has been said above, and to every unprejudiced reader who is able 
to judge of such a matter. A hypothesis that has not a better founda- 
tion than this, 1 cannot believe will find much favour among the more in- 
telligent class of critics. 

Bleek himself finds the reason alleged by Boehme to be quite imsufti- 
cient, although he elsewhere asserts, (as we have seen above), the strong 


§39. WAS APOLLOS THE AUTHOR 2? 959 


resemblance between the epistle to the Hebrews and the first epistle of 
Peter. But the principal reason, he says, which renders the opinion of 
Boehme improbable, is, that Silvanus or Silas was a resident at Jerusalem, 
Acts 15: 22, and must have known better than to commit the mistakes 
made in Heb. 9: 3, 4. On the same ground he decides against Mark as 
the author of our epistle, Comm. I. p. 408. 

The subject of these mistakes has been examined above, § 31, and to 
this examination I must refer the reader. It would at least have been 
well, before so many important arguments were built on the alleged mis- 
takes of Heb. 9; 3, 4, to have inquired still further, whether the mistake 
was in the writer of the passage or in his commentator. 


§ 39. Was Apollos the author 2 


A supposition never made by any of the ancient churches, and first 
ventured upon, I believe, by Luther, Comm. in Gen. 48:20. Postill. Ece. 
Test. S. Johann. Evang. p. 44. But this opinion has since been applaud- 
ed or defended by Le Clere, Heumann, Miiller, Semler, Ziegler, Ber- 
tholdt, Dindorf, and very recently and at some length, by Bleek. 

The difficulties attending the supposition are, (1) We have no external 
evidence in favour of it; no voice of antiquity being raised to testify, that 
Apollos has left one single line of any written composition behind him, 
much less such an epistle as that to the Hebrews. (2) We have no in- 
ternal evidence of such a fact; for there is no testimony of this nature in 
the epistle itself; and there can be no evidence drawn from the style of 
it compared with the style and diction of Apollos, inasmuch as we have 
no writing of Apollos with which the comparison can be made. 

Bleek however urges, (1) That Apollos was ‘a Jew of Alexandria, elo- 
quent, and well versed in the Scriptures, Acts 18: 24. 1 Cor. 1—1v. His 
eloquence will account, he thinks, ‘for the oratorical manner of our epis- 
tle in distinction from that of Paul. His being an Alexandrian, will ex- 
plain his attachment to types, allegory, and mystical explanation, ete.’ 
But was such a mode of explanation, at that time, limited to Alexandria ? 
And as to “being mighty in the Scriptures,” how could a man be called 
so, who committed so gross and obvious a mistake as Bleek attributes to 
the writer, in 9: 3,4 of our epistle? (9) Apollos was a very zealous 
advocate for Christianity in opposition to Judaism, Acts 18:23. Ans. 
So was Paul, and so were many others. (3) ‘Apollos appears to have 
been intimately connected with Paul, Tit. 3:13’ Ans. So was Timothy 
and many others. 

The paragraph of Bleek, on this subject, is closed by high commenda- 
tion of Luther, for “correct critical tact” in making the discovery 
in question; and in his Review, Bleek has expressed the hope that his 
view of this subject in his Commentary, § 91, may win more of my regard 
than I have manifested for it in the first edition of my work. 

Qne thing I very readily concede, viz. that of all the men who have 
been supposed to be the authors of our epistle, (Paul excepted), Apollos 
appears to have been most peculiarly qualified. The possibility that 


260 ini IN WHAT LANGUAGE WAS 


Apollos wrote it who will deny? ‘The ἘΨΝΝ is shia most con- 
cerns us. How then, among all the conjectures of the ancients, (Barna- 
bas, Luke, Clement of Rome), comes it that none of them should ever 
have hit upon the fortunate conjecture of Luther ; and specially when this 
would seem to be so obvious a one? Why did not Pantaenus, Clement 
of Alexandria, and Origen, vindicate this honour to a native of their own 
beloved city? Or if you say that Pantaenus and Clement did not do this 
because they had a preconceived opinion that Paul was the author; why 
did not Origen, (whom Bleek represents as so doubtful about the author 
of our epistle), hit upon this happy conjecture in respect to his native 
townsman? And how could it be, that not a trace of such a belief can 
be found ever to have existed at Alexandria, the native place of Apollos, 
provided he were really the author of our epistle. Of all the places in 
the Christian world, at that time, this was the one most likely to preserve 
and perpetuate the honour due to him. And how could it be, that the 
report of Apollos as being the author should never have reached that 
place? Somebody certainly did once know who wrote our epistle. The 
greetings, etc., at the close of it, make it certain that the church to whom 
it was addressed must have known this. Would not the fame of this 
have reached Alexandria, the second metropolis of the world? And 
would not the memory of it have been perpetuated in the noble school 
there, down to future ages? I do not aver all this to be so; but I must 
confess, that in the light of such questions, I am obliged to regard the 
conjecture of Luther as far less probable and happy than it appears to be 
to Bleek ; nay, to believe that it is altogether improbable. 

If Bleek should ask, whether the same or the like questions may not 
be urged in regard to Paul as the author, I answer that for the most part 
they may. But then the reply to them will be a different one; and this 
is, that the churches at Alexandria were uniform in their belief that Paul 
was the author. I hope he will not take it amiss, therefore, that I feel 
obliged still to regard the happy conjecture of Luther, as without ade- 
quate support, and even against probability. 


§ 40. In what language was the epistle originally written 7 


On this question there has been a difference of opinion among critics, 
both in ancient and modern times. Clement-of Alexandria says, that 
“ Paul wrote to the Hebrews in the Hebrew language, and that Luke 
carefully translated it into Greek,” Euseb. Hist. Eec. V1. 14. Eusebius 
in the same manner says, that ‘ Paul wrote to the Hebrews in his vernacu- 
lar language, and that, according to report, either Luke or Clement trans- 
lated it,’ Euseb. 111. 28. So Jerome also ; “ Scripserat ut Hebraeus He- 
braeis Hebraicé, (Catal. vir. illust. voc. Paulus) ;” and then he adds, that 
‘this epistle was translated into Greek, so that the colouring of the style 
was made diverse, in this way, from that of Paul’s.’ Of the same opin- 
ion in respect to this, was Clement of Alexandria, Theodoret, Eutbalius, 
Primasius, Johannes Damascenus, Oecumenius, Theophylact, and oth- 
ers. Origen, as we have seen above, supposes that the thoughts contain- 


THE EPISTLE ORIGINALLY WRITTEN 2 261 


ed in the epistle were Paul’s, while the diction or costume of it must be 
attributed to the person who wrote down the sentiments of the apostle. 

By the Hebrew language, no one can reasonably doubt, these fathers 
meant the Jerusalem dialect which was spoken in the days of the apostles, 
and not the ancient Hebrew which had long ceased to be a vernacular 
language. 

[Ὁ is quite plain, also, that these fathers were led to the conclusion that 
the epistle to the Hebrews was originally written in the dialect of Pales- 
tine, from their belief (so universal in ancient times) of its having been 
addressed to some church, or to the churches, in that country. It was 
very natural to draw such a conclusion; for would not an epistle ad- 
dressed to Hebrews, in all probability be more acceptable if written in 
their own vernacular language? Moreover, Paul was well acquainted 
with that language, for he was brought up at Jerusalem and “at the feet 
of Gamaliel ;’ and when he visited there, he had addressed the Jewish 
multitude, who were excited against him, in their native tongue, Acts 
22: 1,2. Why should it not be supposed, that if (as is probable) our 
epistle was originally directed to Palestine, it was written in the dialect of 
that country ? 

So the fathers above quoted evidently thought and reasoned ; although 
other fathers have said nothing on this point, and do not appear to have 
coincided in opinion with those to which 1 have just referred. Among 
the moderns, also, several critics have undertaken to defend the same 
opinion ; and particularly Michaelis, who has discussed the subject quite 
at length, in his introduction to this epistle. 

Ido not think it necessary minutely to examine his arguments. 'To 
my own mind they appear altogether unsatisfactory. Some of them are 
built on an exegesis most palpably erroneous, and which, if admitted, 
would deduce a very strange meaning from the words of the epistle. 
Yet, assuming such a meaning, he thence concludes, that the original 
writer must have expressed a different idea, and that the translator mis- 
took his meaning. He then undertakes to conjecture what the original 
Hebrew must have been. In other cases, he deduces his arguments from 
considerations wholly a priori ; as if these were admissible, in a question 
of mere fact. He has not adduced a single instance of what he calls 
wrong translation, which wears the appearance of any considerable pro- 
bability. 

On the other hand, Bolton, a sharp-sighted critic, and well acquainted 
with the Aramaean language, (who has gone through with the New Tes- 
tament, and found almost every where marks, as he thinks, of translation 
from Aramaean documents), confesses that, in respect to this epistle, he 
finds not a single vestige of incorrect translation from an Aramaean orig- 
inal, and no marks that there ever was such an orignal. This testimony is 
of considerable importance in respect to the question before us; as it 
comes from a critic, who spent many years on the study of that which is 
most intimately connected with the very subject under consideration, viz. 
the detection of the Aramaean originals of the various parts of the New 
Testament, Berth. p. 2976. 


The principal arguments in favour of a Hebrew original, are deduced 


262 § 40. IN WHAT LANGUAGE Was 


from two sources. First, that Hebrews are addressed in our epistle, to 
whom the Hebrew language would have been more acceptable and intel- 
ligible, and many of whom, indeed, could not understand Greek, certainly 
could not read it. Secondly, that the diversity of style in the epistle to 
the Hebrews is so great, when compared with Paul’s epistles, that, unless 
we suppose the Greek costume did in fact come from another hand, we 
must be led to the conclusion that Paul did not write it. 

Both of these topics have been already discussed above. 1 merely add 
here, therefore, that in case the writer of the epistle designed it should 
have a wide circulation among the Jews, to write in Greek was altogeth- 
er the most feasible method of accomplishing this. Besides, if Paul did 
address it to the church at Cesarea, it is altogether probable that he wrote 
in Greek, as Greek was the principal language of that city. Even if he 
did not, it was not necessary that he should write in Hebrew ; for in eve- 
ry considerable place in Palestine, there were more or less who under- 
stood the Greek language. Whoever wishes to see this last position es- 
tablished beyond any reasonable doubt, may read Hug’s Einleit. in das 
N. Test. Vol. If. § 10. 

When Paul wrote to the Romans, he did not write in Latin ; yet there 
was no difficulty in making his episile understood, for the knowledge of 
Greek was very common at Rome. If Paul understood the Latin lan- 
guage, (which is no where affirmed, and he had not resided, when he 
wrote our epistle, in any of the countries where it was commonly used), 
still he understood Greek so much better, that he would of course prefer 
writing in it. 

For a similar reason, if no other could be given, one may regard it as 
more probable, that he would write the epistle to the Hebrews in the 
Greek language. At the time of writing it, he had been abroad probably 
as much as twenty five years, in Greek countries, and had been in Pales- 
tine, during all that period, only a few days. The Jews abroad whom 
he every where saw, spoke Greek, not Hebrew. In Greek he preached 
and conversed. Is it any wonder, then, that after twenty five years in- 
cessant labour of preaching, conversing, and writing in this language, he 
should have preferred writing in it? Indeed can it be probable, that, 
under circumstances like these, he still possessed an equal facility of writ- 
ing in his native dialect of Palestine ? 

I cannot think it st‘ange, therefore, that although the epistle to the 
Hebrews was in all probability directed to some part of Palestine, yet it 
was written by Paul in Greek, and not in Hebrew. But, whatever may 
be the estimation put upon arguments of this nature, there are internal 
marks of its having been originally composed in Greek, which cannot well 
be overlooked. Let us examine them. 

Some of the arguments, produced by those who maintain that the ori- 
ginal language of our epistle was Greek, it must be acknowledged, do not 
seem to be well founded. To such belongs the following: viz. , ‘ Instan- 
ces of paronomasia occur in this epistle; which necessarily implies, that 
it was originally composed in its present language.’ For example; Heb. 
5:8, fuadev ap ὧν ἔπαϑε. 5:14, πρὸς διάκρισιν καλοῦ te καὶ 


THE EPISTLE ORIGINALLY WRITTEN 7 263 


κακοῦ. sas ἀπάτωρ, ἀμήτωρ. 9: 10, ἐπὶ βρώμασι καὶ πόμασι. {ΠῚ 9.7. 

Nolioubies ἐπειράσϑησαν. 13: 14, ov γὰρ ἔχομεν ὡδεμένουσαν πόλιν, 
ἀλλὰ τὴν μὲλλο υσαν ἐπιζητοῦμεν. 7. 92, κρείττονος διαϑήκης γέγονεν 
yy νος ᾿Ιησοῦς, comp. v. 19, ἐγ7 ἔξομε ν τῷ ϑεῷ. 10: 3d, τὴν ἄρπα- 
γὴν τῶν ὕπα ox ov των ὑμῶν μετὰ χαρᾶς προσεδέξασϑε, γινώσκοντες ἔχειν 
ἐν ξαυτοῖς κρείττονα Uma o guy ἐν οὐρανοῖς. See Eich. § 270. Bertholdt, 
p. 2987, who has only repeated the same things which Hichhorn had be- 

fore said. 

Of these instances, that only from 10:34 seems to betray any real 
marks of design; and even here, the marks are by no means of a deci- 
sive nature. “Ev ery one who will examine any Greek writing whatever, 
may find in it more or less of apparent paronomasia in the same way, 
without any difficulty ; and this, where the author had no intention of 
exhibiting it. Whether an author really designed to exhibit paronomasia 
or not, will in general be very apparent. I[ cannot perceive that any one 
of the alleged paronomasias in question, really appears to be the effect of 
design, If they are altogether accidental, they must have occurred in the 
Hebrews, even if its present language is merely that of a translation. In 
fact, even designed paronomasias may, not unfrequently, occur in a trans- 
lation. The argument in favour of the Greek being the original language 
of the epistle to the Hebrews, built on such instances of paronomasia as 
the above, (where, in most cases, it is a mere homophony of like tenses 
or cases), is too uncertain and too slender to be rested on, as a proper sup- 
port of the opinion in question. 

But there are better arguments than such, to prove that the epistle to 
the Hebrews was originally written in Greek. They are derived from 
the manner in which the quotations from the Old Testament are made 
and employed in our epistle. 

(1) The author has, nearly throughout, quoted the Sept. version, and fol- 
lowed it in some cases, even where it differs somewhat from the Hebrew. 
This, indeed, might be done to a certain extent by a translator. For ex- 
ample; if Paul had appealed to the Hebrew Seriptures, and cited passa- 
ges from them, the translator might have taken the corresponding passa- 
ges in his Greek Bible. It might easily be supposed that it would have 
been very natural for him to do so, in all cases where there was no con- 
siderable difference between the original Hebrew and the Greek version. 
This argument, therefore, cannot be much relied on. But it is further 
alleged. 

(2) That the writer of the epistle to the Hebrews has cited and em- 
ployed the Sept. version, in order to illustrate his positions, in cases where 
the Septuagint does not correspond with the original Hebrew. For ex- 
ample; Heb. 1. 6, Let all the angels of God worship him, is quoted, in or- 
der to show that the Son of God is superior to the angels. If this be 
quoted (as is more generally supposed ) from Ps. 97: 7, the context there 
seems to indicate, that the subject is the supertority of Jehovah to idol-gods, 
not of Christ to the angels. Instead of “ Let all the angels of God wor- 
ship him,” the Hebrew runs thus, “ Worship him, all ye gods ;” and so 
our English translation has it. If the quotation be made from Deut. 32: 
43 (as some have supposed), then is the argument stil] stronger; for in 


204 δ 40. IN WHAT LANGUAGE WAS 


the original Habrew there is not a vestige of the passage quoted; it is 
found only in the Septuagint. In either case the force of the -appeal 
seems to rest on the Sept. version, rather than on the original Hebrew. 
Of course the writer must be supposed to have used that version, in his 
original composition, by all those who hold that he appeals in this case to 
a passage of the Old Testament. Such is the usual form of this argu- 
ment; but as [ have doubts whether the Psalm is not Messianic, I cannot 
attribute so much to dependence here on the Septuagint. 

(3) It is said that the writer, in Chap. 11., appeals to Ps. vit. in order 
to prove that the Son of God must possess a human nature, which should 
be exalted above that of angels, and placed at the head of the creation. 
But the phrase in Hebrew, T'how hast made him a little below the Elohim, 
is rendered by the Septuagint, Thou hast made him for a little time [or a 
little] lower than the angels; rendering ΓΙ πὺξ angels, which, to say the least, 
is an unusual sense of the word. Yet on the sense of the version in the 
Septuagint, turns the force of the proof that Christ was, in his human na- 
ture, superior to the angels. 

But as it has now come to be conceded, that patie may mean angels, 
(see Ges. Thesaurus Ling. Heb. in voc.), I should not Jay much stress on 
this argument. 

(4) In chap. vit., the writer has translated the appellations, Melchizedek, 
king of Salem, and told at length what they mean in Greek. It is possi- 
ble that such a thing might be done by a translator; but then the expla- 
nation, in this case, appears to be interwoven with the discourse itself, and 
to be α prima manu. 

(5) In chap. 9: 16, 17 Christ is said, in reference to the old covenant un- 
der Moses, to be the mediator of a new and better covenant, M772 , in Greek 
διαϑήκη. But from the double meaning of διαϑήκη in Greek, ViZ. cove- 
nant and testament, the writer takes occasion, having ees at the death 
of Jesus, to observe that the new διαϑήχη has received its full confirma- 
tion, viz. as a testament, by the death of the testator ; and that he may the 
more effectually remove all offence at the death of Jesus, he goes on to 
say, that a διαϑήκη, i. e. testament, (for now he uses the word in this 
sense), has no force while the testator is living. Of course the death of Je- 
sus was necessary to ratify the new dvadyjxn 3 and it did in fact ratify and 
establish it, to all intents and purposes. 

Now this reasoning seems to depend on the two-fold sense of the word 
διαϑήκη in Greek ; for the original 4°42 , in Hebrew, never has the sense 
of testament or ul: The Greak word (Oli Sape has, indeed? been adopted 
into the Rabbinic Hebrew, and sounds ΩΣ. But that it belonged to 
the Hebrew language in Pauls day, there is no certain proof; and even 
if there were, M792 must have been the only word to which he referred, 
for N73 is an appropriate word to designate the Abrahamic and Mosaic 
dispensations or the old covenants. Of course the writer’s illustration 
seems to depend on the two-fold meaning of the Greek word διαϑήκη; 
and consequently his language must have been Greek. 

(6) In chap. 10: 3 seq. the writer undertakes to show, that the sacrifice 
of Christ was not only necessary, in order to make expiation for sin, but 
that it was predicted in the Psalms that he should make such an offering. 


THE EPISTLE ORIGINALLY WRITTEN 2? 265 


In proof of this, he quotes the Septuagint version, 4 body hast thow pre- 
pared for me, Ps. 39:6. (40:7), viz. a body for an offering or expiato- 
ry sacrifice. Compare now Ps. 40:7, where the Hebrew runs thus, 
MED DTN , mine ears hast thou opened or bored, i. 6. thou hast made 
me Obedient. ἢ ‘But it is the Septuagint version which appears to give di- 
rect oceasion for the specific allegation of the writer, viz. that Christ had 
made an offering of himself as a ‘propitiatory sacrifice. 

Other instances of a similar nature have been produced by critics from 
our epistle ; but as they are less striking, and may admit of some doubt, I 
have thought it best to exclude them. These are sufficient to shew, that as 
the nature, or at least the form, of the proof or argument which the writer 
brings forward, depends, in some respects, on the form of the Septuagint 
version, so it is probable that he must have written in Greek and appealed 
to the Greek version ; for it is improbable to the last degree, that if the 
epistle had been written in Hebrew, he would have appealed to any but 
the original Hebrew Scriptures when addressing those who were acquaint- 
ed with them. 

Whatever difficulties the theologian or the interpreter may find, in re- 
conciling these facts with the method of arguing which he may suppose 
appropriate to an inspired writer, it cannot alter the facts themselves. 
These seem not to be matters of conjecture. And admitting this, we are 
compelled to draw the conclusion, that THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF OUR 
EPISTLE MUST HAVE BEEN GREEK. 

I would add, that the vivid colouring and animation of the whole epis- 
tle, the impassioned and energetic expression of it, and its native, uncon- 
strained appearance, all contribute to prove that it was originally written 
in the same language in which it now appears. ᾿ 


§ 40. Critical and exegetical helps to the study of the epistle. 


It is not my object to make out a copious catalogue of these, but only 
to notice those which are more particularly deserving of attention. 


Ancient Greek Commentators. 


Chrysostom, Theodoret, and Theophylact, the Greek commentators on 
this epistle, are all deserving of an attentive perusal, in various respects, 
Philological (in the technical sense of this word) the reader must not ex- 
pect to find them. Chrysostom is the most copious, flowing, and oratori- 
eal; 'Theodoret, the most brief and comprehensive ; but Theophylact 
is by far the most agreeable, especially for beginners in the study of 
Greek commentary. He comprises all that is valuable in Chrysostom, 
and, for the most part, nearly in Chrysostom’s words ; while, at the same 
time, he has given to the whole, more ease, simplicity, and compactness. 
Seldom does he venture upon any new opinion of his own, and when he 
does, it is with great deference to his predecessors. ‘The book deserves 
a republication at the present day, as a part of the apparatus requisite to 
the study of our epistle, and as one of the easiest and best means, of in- 


34 


266 § 40. HELPS TO THE STUDY OF THE EPISTLE. 


troducing the young interpreter to an acquaintance with the Greek Com- 
mentators. 

If a glossary should be added to such a book, containing the few words 
in Theophylact that are not found in our common Greek lexicons, and 
also the very good Latin translation which now accompanies the Greek 
of Theophylact, it would constitute an excellent book, for commencing 
the study and the knowledge of the original Greek fathers. 


English Commentators. 


Owen, Exposition of the epistle to the Hebrews, with preliminary Ex- 
ercitations, 7 vols. 8vo. Edinb. 1812—14.—This work is replete with re- 
marks of a doctrinal and experimental nature. The philology of it will 
be less valued, at the present day. 

J. Pierce, Paraphrase and Notes on the epistles of Paul, 4to. Lond. 1733. 
—Some of the sentiments differ widely from those of Owen, and are 
such as ought to be examined with great caution; but the work, as a 
whole, exceeds any English commentary which I have read. The au- 
thor has a great deal of acuteness, and is by no means wanting in regard 
to a tact for criticism. 

Dr. S. T. Bloomfield has recently published an edition of the Greek Test. 
with English Notes, in which he has paid special attention to the epistle 
to the Hebrews, and his notes are a good summary of what has been done 
to illustrate it, and also contain valuable remarks that are original. The 
book is an exceedingly beautiful one, and is printed with great care. It 
will doubtless facilitate and promote the critical study of the New Testa- 
ment. It is in two vols. 8vo. 

The works of Sykes, Whitby, Doddridge, Macknight, Scott, Clark, and 
others, on this epistle, may profit some classes of readers, but they are not 
adapted to the higher purposes of philology. 


Commentaries in Latin and German. 


Among the older commentators, Erasmus, Grotius, Le Clerc, Drusius, 
J. Cappell, Limborch, and Wolfius, have distinguished themselves. The 
more recent works are the following. 

J.B. Carpzovius, Exercitt. in Pauli epist. ad Hebraeos, ex Philone Al- 
exandrino, 8vo. Helmst. 1750.—The same author has also published, 
Uebersetzung des Briefs an die Hebriier, Helmst. 1795. 

J. A. Cramer, Erklirung des BriefS an die Hebrier, 4to. Kopenhagen, 
1757, a work replete with learning, and well deserving of attention. 

C. F. Schmidius, Observatt. super epist. ad Hebraeos, histor. crit. et 
theologicae, 8vo. Lips. 1766. 

J. D. Michaelis, Erklirung des Briefs an die Hebrier, 4to. 2 edit. 1780. 

S. F. M. Morus, Der Brief an die Hebrier uebersetzt, 8vo. Leipz. 1786. 

G. C. Storr, Pauli Brief an die Hebriier erlautert, 8vo. Tiibingen, 1809. 

J. A. Ernesti, Lectiones in epist. ad Hebraeos; Ilustrationes adjecit 
G. J. Dindorf, 8vo. Lips. 1795—a book of real worth, in a critical respect, 
although not executed with much taste as to form and manner. I have 


§ 40. HELPS TO THE STUDY OF THE EPISTLE. 267 


found in it more to my purpose, than in any other of the commentaries 
which I have consulted. 

Heinrichs, in Nov. Test. Koppiano, Vol. vitr.—This is a work, which 
exhibits some striking remarks, and no inconsiderable tact for exegesis. 
But the occasional extravagance of this writer’s opinions, and the haste 
with which he throws off his works, are to be regretted, as he plainly 
possesses ability to go deeper into his subjects of inquiry. 

D. Schulz, Der Brief an die Hebriéer, Einleitung, Uebersetzung, und 
Anmerkungen, 8vo. Breslau, 1818. 

Epist. ad Heb. Latine vertit, atque commentario instruxit perpetuo, C. 
F. Boehme, 8vo. Lips. 1825. See above, § 31. 

Der Brief an die Hebrier erlaiitert, etc., von Friedrich Bleek, Berlin, 
1828. The first volume only has been received, which contains a more 
ample and learned discussion of the critical questions in respect to the 
epistle to the Hebrews, than any of the preceding books that I have met 
with. 

Kuinoel, Comm. in Epist. ad Hebraeos, Lips. 1831; the latest critical 
explanation of the epistle which I have seen, and the best, that of Er- 
nesti by Dindorf excepted. / 


Literature of the epistle. 


The introductions of Michaelis, Haenlein, Eichhorn, Hug, Bertholdt, De 
Wette, Bleek, Schott, and Kuinoel, exhibit the sum of what has been hith- 
erto accomplished, in regard to this subject. Seyffarth and Schulz, in the 
works examined above, have also discussed the same subject; as have 
Ziegler, Noesselt, Weber, Lardner, and others. Wolfius, Storr, Schmidt, 
Cramer, and most other commentators, have touched, more or less, on 
the literary topics that pertain to the epistle. Lardner, Storr, Ziegler, 
Cramer, Eichhorn, Bertholdt, Hug, Schulz, and Bleek, are most conspicu- 
ous among the class of writers now under consideration. 


re Nat Ua, Nib 2 We ΠΥ Ψ "μὲ 
ot My) «ΜᾺ ΤΌΣ rm i ashaneh 


ed en ἀντ τον ψιιδιι AA te 


' " ΠΟ] tae f Ar CTs hy 
wer ways hae AP AR ΜΡ ty) i 
“ ἢ Ἢ Ἶ + ye. ea εἴν aye ΠΝ ἐπι nk i ae 
+ γῆν ἐν fant nasi! i χὰ i imi 

ΠΥ nt sith 


en ἐς ῃ 
τη Ovals eit) at Ν᾽ Ἵν ie 4 ate 1 Cia hu i rf Mh} 
Ἢ Ν᾽ Ἢ ‘ f ᾿ ὦ a, ba icv} 


cn ἐν; "ὰ _ nee τὰ 4 Ἢ ἡ : a ca a ἐν ee 


nations bo pniilani 


ἢ ᾿ Naa i : ἪΡ» } 
ἡμὶ ae ck ΓΤ ta wruassbvnde 8 4b ν᾿ 


a He ii if Tt Rat 70. ΠΥ ΔΤ, alt vee fi ᾿ 
mA sf Ko fi ΤΑΙ we x rear int "αι Τ᾽ ἣ ἡῥηννων a we wiki i) 
re ohn ot Ἀψιϑιμονη it \ 


iy i 


ts Ht a ἣν a uf Pry a nr oho aye 
ith wl peel ἀμ... ἢ | “Μία ἢ θὰ a 


ἀμ tec ἀμ λυ 


ἱ ᾿ ai 


hu 


COMMENTARY. 


SUMMARY OF WHAT 18 CONTAINED IN THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
. 


Tue writer of this epistle is a Hebrew, and addresses his Hebrew 
brethren who had made a profession of the Christian religion. Noth- 
ing can be plainer, than that those addressed are eonsidered as being 
in danger of apostasy from that religion. ‘To warn them against this 
danger, is the principal object of our epistle. In order to do this, the 
writer proceeds to lay before them the aggravated guilt and the awful 
doom of those who make defection from Christianity; to direct their 
views towards that crown of glory which fadeth not away, and which is 
reserved in heaven for all who persevere, even to the end of life, in their 
fidelity to Christ ; to put them on their guard against the various entice- 
ments of sin which might allure them from the path of Christian duty ; 
and especially to guard them against relapsing into superstitious views, 
respecting the importance and necessity of the ceremonial rites and 
sacrifices of the Levitical institutions, and against being induced by 
these to relax their confidence in Jesus and in his atoning sacrifice. 

To these last sources of danger the Hebrew Christians were particu- 
larly exposed. Nothing could well be more magnificent and imposing 
than the temple worship, as practised by the Jews at that time. The 
temple, built after their return from the captivity, was not, indeed, so 
rich in ornament as that which Solomon had built. But it had, at a 
vast expense, been greatly extended and beautified by Herod. It was re- 
garded by all Jews as the peculiar dwelling place of Jehovah—the only 
one in which he designed to manifest himself on earth. The Jewish na- 
tion, also, habitually regarded themselves as the only one to whom God 
had made a special revelation. ‘The worship practised in the temple, 
had been instituted by Moses under divine guidance, and continued 
with but partial interruptions for about 1500 years. All the exterior of 
this worship, was adapted to strike the eye and impress the mind of the 
beholder. The awfulness of the place in which it was celebrated ; the 


270 SUMMARY OF WHAT IS CONTAINED IN 


magnificent costume of the priests ; the spacious and lofty apartment in 
which they officiated ; the solemn part which he who offered any sacri- 
fice was himself called to perform ; above all, the apprehension that full 
pardon for sin and reconciliation to God were obtained by the rites and 
offerings which the law prescribed ; contributed to make deep and last- 
ing impressions on the mind of all Hebrews, who seriously exercised 
their thoughts on the subject of religion and paid their devotions in the 
temple. All their education, from the first dawning of the youthful 
mind, had a direct tendency to confirm and strengthen these impres- 
sions. Never was a nation more enthusiastically attached to its cus- 
toms, rites, and country, than were the Jews. They looked abroad 
upon other nations as outcasts from God, and unworthy of his paternal 
kindness and blessing. 

The New Testament is full of evidence adapted to shew the correct- 
ness of this statement. The disputes which the extension of Christian 
privileges to the Gentiles occasioned among the first Jewish converts ; 
the reluctance with which the former were admitted to participate in 
them; and the repeated, violent, and long protracted opposition that 
was made to abandoning the peculiar rites of the Mosaic institutions ; 
all contribute to evince how deeply engraven upon the mind of every 
Jew was the impression, that the laws of Moses were never to be chang- 
ed, and that the Messiah himself was rather to restore and modify than 
to repeal them. 

In such a state of mind had the Christian converts once been whom 
the writer of our epistle addressed. What wonder, now, if they were 
exposed from this quarter to be shaken in their attachment to the new 
religion which they had professed, and which confessedly gave up all 
confidence in the religious rites of the Levitical institutions? 'Tempta- 
tions from without also assailed them. Their unbelieving Hebrew 
brethren argued with them; opposed them; ridiculed them; made 
powerful appeals to all the feelings with which their birth, education, 
and former worship had inspired them; persecuted them; traduced 
them to the heathen magistrates; and excommunicated them. 'They 
suffered the loss of property, and of liberty. ‘Their lives were threaten- 
ed. The coming of Christ, which they had supposed would speedily 
take place for their deliverance, was delayed. How could it be, that 
human frailty, joimed with former prejudices and present sufferings, 
should not exercise a dangerous influence upon them? 

In this state the apostle saw them to be, and set himself about the 
important and difficult work of correcting their errors, and encouraging 


THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 271 


their desponding minds. How was this to be done with the greatest 
probability of success? Plainly arguments and considerations of such 
a nature as were best adapted to meet the difficulties with which they 
were contending, were those to which he would most readily resort. 
And throughout the whole epistle it is manifest that he has done this, 
with consummate skill, judgment, and force. 

As the greatest of all the dangers to which the Hebrew converts were 
exposed, was that which resulted from their former religious attach- 
ments and prejudices, excited and augmented as they daily were by the 
efforts of their unbelieving Jewish brethren ; so the writer of our epistle 
employs his principal force, in order to preclude or avert this danger. 
Other topics are subordinate with him. Although they are often touch- 
ed upon, and with great skill and power, yet they are so interwoven 
with the main object before him, that they are in a measure concealed 
from the first view of a hasty reader. 

The general plan of the epistle may be briefly represented. It con- 
sists in a comparison of the new dispensation with the old, and in point- 
ing out the various grounds of preference which belong to the new. 
From this superiority of the new dispensation various arguments are 
deduced, in order to shew the importance of cleaving to the Christian 
profession instead of reverting back to Judaism, which latter could not 
now be the means of saving those who embraced it. Considerations of 
such a nature are repeated, as often as the comparisons introduced 
afford occasion for them. This accounts for the repetition of hortatory 
addresses, so often found in our epistle. 

The Jews gloried in their dispensation, because angels had been em- 
ployed as mediators of it when the law was given at Sinai. In their 
view, this stamped a high and heavenly honour upon it. Our author 
does not attack their views of this subject, but he commences his epistle 
by shewing that Christ, the mediator and head of the new dispensation, 
as it regards his name, his rank, his dominion, his creative and eternal 
power, is superior to the angels, 1: ]—14. On this ground then, 
Christianity may claim a precedence ; and hence he exhorts them to 
give their most earnest attention to it, 2: 1—4, 

Nor can they object to the superiority of the Messiah, that he possess- 
ed a human nature, while the angels are spiritual and heavenly beings. 
For in his human nature he is Lord of the universe, 2: 5—10. It was 
this nature, too, which gave him a nearer and more endearing sympa- 
thy with his followers; and by taking this upon him, he was enabled to 
make an expiatory offering for sin by his death ; so that he is now fitted 


QTR GENERAL VIEW OF THE CONTENTS 


not only to exercise compassion toward men, but to save them from the 
bondage of sin and from its condemning power, 2: 11—18. 

Having thus disposed of this topic, he next proceeds to compare 
Jesus, the head of the new dispensation, with Moses the head of the 
ancient one. Like Moses, he was set over the house of God and en- 
trusted with it, and was faithful to his trust. But the honour due to 
Jesus is as much more than that due to Moses, as the builder of a house 
is worthy of more honour than the house itself. Christ too was set 
over God’s house as a Son; but Moses only as a servant, 3: 1—6. 

If now the Israelites of old were solemnly admonished to hearken to 
the precepts given under the Mosaic dispensation, then surely believers 
in Christ may be more solemnly urged to beware of disobedience to his 
injunctions, 3:7—19. And this warning holds good and is applicable 
in all respects, because the rest which was promised to believers in 
ancient times, and was lost through unbelief, is still proffered to all who 
believe in Jesus and persevere in their profession, and only to such, 
4:1—10. Awful commination is indeed still uttered against those 
who are guilty of apostasy, 4: L1—138. 

Thus much for the comparison of Christ with Moses. Next, the 
writer proceeds to compare Jesus, as a priest, with the Jewish priest- 
hood, and particularly with the high priest, the most dignified of all 
who were invested with the sacerdotal office. 

He first introduces Christ as a compassionate high priest, and exalted 
to the highest dignity in the heavens, 4: 14—16. Next, he states the 
various things which are attached to the priesthood, as existing among 
the sons of Levi. (1) A high priest must present oblations and sacri- 
fices, 5:1. (2) He must be compassionate and sympathetic towards 
others, and especially so, as he is himself frail and erring, 5: 2,3. (9) 
He must be appointed of God to this office, 5: 4. 

In all these respects he now goes on to make a comparison of Jesus, 
the high priest of Christianity, and to shew his superiority to the Jew- 
ish priests. 

First, Christ was divinely appointed a priest, and that of the high- 
est order, 5: 5, 6. 

Secondly, Christ our great high priest was encompassed with human 
infirmity, like other priests, but by this he was fitted to exercise 
compassionate sympathy, 5:7, 8. After he had suffered, he was ex- 
alted to glory and became a high priest after the order of Melchizedek, 
5:9, 10. 

The difficulty of the subject now suggested, affords an occasion for 


OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 2373 


the writer to advert to the state of religious ignorance in which those 
were whom he addressed, 5: 11—14; to exhort them tocome out of it, 
and to warn them against the fearful danger that would result from not 
doing so,6:1—8. To this he subjoins commendation as to some 
things, and powerful motives of encouragement to go on in their Chris- 
tian course, 6 : 9—20. 

He now resumes the subject of Melchizedek ; shews the superiority 
of his priesthood over that of the sons of Levi, 7: 1—10; and then ar- 
gues that Christ, who was a perpetual priest of the like order with 
Melchizedek, must of course be superior to the Jewish priests, 7: 
11—25. 

Christ too, as high priest, differs in one important respect from the 
Jewish priests, viz. in that he needed no sacrifice for himself as an err- 
ing sinful man like the sons of Levi, but was sinless and perfect, yea, 
even exalted to a state of supreme glory, 7 : 26—28, 

The great object, however, at which the writer aims in the sequel of 
his epistle, is, to shew that the high priest of Christianity officiates in 
heaven for his followers,8: 1,2. The Jewish priests perform their 
functions in a temple, which is merely an image of the heavenly one, 
8: 3—6. 

The new covenant of which Jesus is mediator, is altogether superior 
to the old, 8: 6—13. The ordinances and apparatus of service attach- 
ed to this, were all mere types of heavenly things, 9: 1—10. The ser- 
vices themselves were imperfect as to the end attained by them, since 
they accomplished nothing more than external purification ; but the 
blood of Christ, the mediator of the new covenant, sanctifies internally, 
and procures eternal redemption and an everlasting inheritance, for all 
the chosen of God in every age of the world, 9: 11—15. (If the new 
covenant be examined in another light, viz. one in which another sig- 
nification of the word δια ϑήκη, testament, might occasion us to exam- 
ine it, it may be regarded as made valid by the death of Jesus, and thus 
securing an inheritance to the people of God, 9: 16,17). Because the 
blood of Christ was to sanction the new covenant, therefore the first 
covenant (δια ϑήκη), with all the apparatus attached to it, was sanc- 
tioned by blood (which is the emblem of death), 9: 18—22. If the 
earthly sanctuary was thus consecrated, then the heavenly one must be 
so by a sacrifice of a still higher nature, 9: 23,24. Sacrifices in the 
earthly temple must be often repeated ; but the sacrifice of Christ did 
once for all accomplish the great purposes for which it was offered, 
9: 24—28. 

35 


274 GENERAL VIEW OF THE CONTENTS 


Indeed, no legal sacrifices could make any real atonement for sin, 
10: 1—4; therefore Christ voluntarily proffered himself as a sin offer- 
ing, entirely and forever to effect this, 10: 5—18. 

Thus is completed the comparison of Christ, and of his functions as 
a priest in the heavenly tabernacle, with the Jewish priests and their 
funtions in the earthly tabernacle. In all respects, Jesus the high priest 
of the Christian religion appears greatly superior. 

The writer now proceeds to various bold and powerful exhortations, 
mixed with awful warnings against defection from the Christian reli- 
gion, 10: 19—31. He sets before them the effects of persevering faith 
in the ancient patriarchs, prophets, and distinguished worthies, 11:1 
—40. This he follows up with continued exhortations and encourage- 
ments and warnings, 12: 1—29; and then closes his epistle with divers 
practical directions, cautions, and salutations, 13 : 1—25. 

Such is the brief view of the course of thought and reasoning in our 
epistle. It is plain that there are three great points of comparison in 
it, which constitute the main object at which the writer aims, in order 
that he may shew the superiority of Christianity over Judaism. 

I. The superiority of Christ, the mediator of the new covenant, over 
angels who were employed as mediators when the old covenant was es- 
tablished, Chap. 1. 11. 

Il. The superiority of Christ the head of the new dispensation, over 
Moses the head of the old, Chap. 111. 1v. 

III. The superiority of Christ as high priest of the new dispensation, 
and of the services which he performs, over the priesthood of the Mosaic 
institution and all the services which were appropriate to their office, 
5: 1—10: 18. 

Exhortations, warnings, reproofs, and encouragements, are intermix- 
ed in some manner with the main discussions; 6. g.2:1—4. 38: 1. 
3: 7—4: 16. 4: 11—6:20; but from 10: 19 to the end of the epis- 
tle, nearly all is of the nature just described ; so that about one half of 
the epistle is of a parenetical or hortatory nature. 

In judging of the relevancy and importance of the subjects discussed 
in our epistle, it is very plain that we are not to make up an opinion 
deduced merely from viewing the present necessities and condition of 
Christians. We were not born Jews, nor educated as such. We have 
none of their prejudices, peculiar sympathies, temptations, and trials. 
What was adapted to them, in the days of Paul, and under the circum- 
stances above described; nay, what was absolutely indispensable for 
their instruction, reproof, and confirmation ; may, in many respects, be 


OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 275 


scarcely appropriate to us in our condition and circumstances. Such is 
indeed the fact, in regard to many of the things introduced into the 
epistle to the Hebrews; as I shall have occasion hereafter repeatedly 
to notice. But who that judges with any good degree of candour and 
fairness, would ever think of bringing it as an accusation against our 
author, that he has inserted in his epistle that which was altogether 
appropriate to those whom he addressed, although it may not and does 
not have an equal bearing upon all times and nations? Surely the last 
ground of just accusation which can be advanced against any writer, 
is, that ‘he has written in a manner peculiarly adapted to accomplish 
the end for which he wrote.’ In what a different plight would the 
world of authors be, if all of them were justly liable to such an imputa- 
tion ! 

Of necessity, now, many things addressed to the Jews of Paul’s day, 
are comparatively inapplicable to us. So far, however, as our circum- 
stances agree with theirs in any respect, just so far the spirit of what 
was said to them will apply to us. So far as what was said to them 
was founded in general Christian truths and principles, just so far we 
may be instructed and guided by it. Consequently the epistle, ‘while 
it contains many things appropriate only to the Hebrews of early times, 
also contains many which can never cease to interest the church of 
God while Christianity exists in the world. 

These general views may serve to aid the critical student, in com- 
mencing the exegetical study of our epistle. ‘The more particular de- 
tail of what is here hinted, is reserved for the introductions to various 
parts of the epistle, which are inserted (pro re nata) in the body of the 
commentary which follows. 


; ἣν Ἢ παῖδα hl Ὶ 
RR te αν a grins 4 cay 
[ θυ ἡ nye iia αν. hale vit δε βρης fast at ad ‘ntti ᾿ 
| ra hie Tet ohio fined aera Wei aes) uF ed an 
ae | en woven Toate geet oun Mae AREER.) 
i ΤῸ RR νιν. ΩΣ ΠΤ as ink ie ae heen ined aw Re pede 


ne Deo Tointiol hl) eee eet potent Be Oe ala 
TRA st cana ite” BA ORAL iO eB χα δ A He nett al vo aei 
ἀμ ini vn ὠνω; afte ail ulti ae vith he ΠῚ ve anionnviele ay yh 
eA. δέν ἢ A eg ‘ain enily: asta TA vrealidl ἫΝ 
" Pi eyeatth ent eth wre eam a 
eee ΑΜ ΜΗΝ ἢ 

ἮΝ a. ite na A Seen henson Seca el Rites th MMA 
vat ‘lina tated εἶνε ἀμ ἀν MENA oh, AF dit {tive aunt: ae Pai ae 
mG" neg Hele ἢ ἮΝ ny ἣν" vet ey (ial, ΩΝ ah 
ee fal nV We ἀμ aie: 
je μόν ΝΣ sin as favo mI ele We! τὴν i (atéhd AMO il aasecsdiion ΜΝ Ἵ 
᾿ ᾿ ἌΝ ye? Byers ᾽ a 


PS "re yng δὰ " 


" ὴ μοι ΔΝ κυ ral dane eld ahp 
| et adits ue nity ‘PHT RENN γοργὸν op rato) una use i 
- 4 spies tae ora wah, ais LS νὰ ΠΣ aay tt we 
ae PEAS aut oe phen Neyo bono we farseran ναὶ ρὸν alah liens 
7 i al han aSroctamit ἢ (ane oy “aN αἰνὰ ἀρ ΝΙΝ Sh, eal Ἢ 
ee if Hate a ΜΟΝΕ Gio: λδϊηναθνα ἐν ἫΝ 
ἐὰν ΤῊ τ νει vd gape 
vie 7 
\ 
Ἢ Ὁ | 
. vn lula 
iy pai m ; 1 as nme es 
a Mi bran Hi msi Liven trib in wo au hein ᾿ 
βρη ὦ rey Mak shi | ᾿ 
es ee ae 
τς RN nee sation enegky, Sune a ; μὴ 
Τὰ ᾧ 
' ΝΣ 
mat “aa 
Ch ori j 
bi ν᾿ Lian 
ἐν a 


COMMENTARY. : 


CONTENTS or cuapters I. J—II, 4. 


The object of the writer being to commend Christianity to those whom he addressed, in such & 
manner as to prevent defection from it, he begins by setting forth Christ as the author of the new 
revelation which God had made to men, 1: 1. He then touches,upon the dignity of his office; he is 
Lord of the world, which indeed he also created, 1:2. He is the true image of God, and the repre- 
sentative of his glory and perfections to men; he is endowed with sovereign power ; and having 
made atonement for the sins of men, he is exalted to the highest majesty in the heavens, 1: 3, This 
mediator of the new dispensation is exalted above angels, who were the mediators of the ancient 
one. His name, SON, is more exaltad than theirs; for they have not been addressed, like him, 
with such an appellation, 1: 4,5. He is the object of worship by the angels; while they are em- 
ployed only as the swift and ready messengers of God, 1: 6,7. The King Messiah has an eternal 
and righteous dominion ; and is elevated, on account of his love of righteousness, to honour and 
happiness above all other kings, 1:8, 9. Him, too, one of the sacred writers addresses, as the 
creator of the heavens and the earth, and as immutable and imperishable, 1: 10—12, But no ex- 
altation to such dominion is conferred upon angels, 1:13; they are only ministerial agents, em- 
ployed for the good of those who are to be heirs of the salvation which Christ bestows, 1: 14. 

If such be the dignity and elevation of the Messiah, then surely the attentive consideration of 
all which he addresses to his followers, may be justly demanded. Obedience to the ancient reve- 
ation was enforced by just and unavoidable penalties ; how can the neglect of the new and more 
perfect one go unpunished ? 2:1,2. Especially must this be the case, since it was promulgated 
by Christ himself, in person, and was confirmed, on the part of God, bya great variety of wondrous 


miracles and gifts, 2: 3, 4. 


CHAP. I. 


‘H πρὸς ᾿Πβραίους ἐπιστολή. Respecting this title, see p. 34. 1. seq. 

(1) ΠΠολυμερῶς καὶ πολυτρύπως, literally in many parts and in vari- 
ous ways. Of the Greek commentators some give a different sense to 
each of the words; e.g. Theodoret, 7 ολύμερ ὦ ς---τὰς παντοδαπὰς 
οἰκονομίας σημαίνει, τὸ δὲ πολυτρόπως, τῶν ϑείων ὁπτασιῶν 
τὸ διάφορον, i. 6. πολυμερῶς signifies the various dispensations, but πο - 
λυτρόπως the diversity of divine visions. Theophylact interprets the 
words in question, by διαφόρως καὶ πολυειδώς, diversely and in various 
ways. But Chrysostom expresses the sense of both words, by διαφόρως 
simply. Modern commentators are divided in the same manner. The 
Greek idiom allows either mode of interpretation ; and precedents may be 


278 HEBREWS I. 1. 


found for each. See Schleusner on the words; and compare Clem. 
Alex. Strom. I. 4. p. 991. V. 6. p. 667, ed. Potter; also VI. 7 where 
the words in question are used respecting a revelation. If the two 
words be construed separately, then πολυμερῶς should be interpreted 
as referring to the matter of ancient revelation, given in different parts 
and at different times, thus conveying the idea of the gradual develop- 
ment of truth in different ages and by different persons; and πολυτρύ- 
πῶς must be understood as indicating the various ways in which these 
revelations were communicated, 1. 6. by dreams, visions, symbols, Urim 
and Thummim, prophetic ecstasy, etc. But if both words are regard- 
ed as being used only to designate with intensity the variety of ancient 
revelations, (and such a mode of phraseology is very common both in 
the Greek and Hebrew Scriptures), then the whole may be paraphrased 
thus: ‘God, who in ancient times made communications in many dif- 
ferent ways by the prophets to the fathers, hath, etc.’ The word πο- 
λυμερῶς does not, of itself, signify sundry times ; but still, the idea of 
various parts or portions, which it does properly signify, may very 
naturally be understood as implying diverse times at which, or occasions 
on which, the different parts of revelation were communicated ; or the 
idea of πολυμερώς may be simply that of repetition, so that often would 
well communicate the sense of it. In this way I have ventured to 
translate it. But Kuinoel and Dindorf refer both words merely to the 
variety of matter or doctrines comprised in ancient revelation. But 
what becomes of the antithesis with the latter part of the verse, in 
this way of interpretation? Isthere a less variety of subjects touched 
on by the New Testament, than by the Old? 

Of the two modes of interpreting these words, I rather prefer that 
which separates them, and gives a distinct meaning to each. The 
writer evidently designs to present an antithesis between the manner of 
the ancient and the Christian dispensation. ‘This antithesis is rendered 
more striking, if we understand the first clause in the verse thus; 
‘God, who in ancient times made communications to the fathers by the 
prophets, in sundry parts and in various ways, has now made a revela- 
tion tous by his Son;’ 1. 6. he has completed the whole revelation, 
which he intends to make under the new dispensation, by his Son,— 
by his Son only, and not by a long continued series of prophets, as of 
old. The apostles, and other inspired writers of the New Testament, 
received their communications from the Son, who gave them the Holy 
Spirit, Matt. 11 : 27, comp. John 14:26. 16: 13; and facts shew that 


HEBREWs I. 1. 279 


the Christian revelation was completed, during that generation which 
was cotemporary with the Saviour when he dwelt on earth. 

Τ]άλαι, in ancient times; for communications by prophets to the Jews 
had ceased, since the time of Malachi and his cotemporaries, i. e. for 
the space of about four hundred years. Hence the writer avoids using 
an expression which would imply, that revelations had been continued 
down to the time then present. By nadae he evidently means to desig- 
nate the whole time, during which communications of the divine will 
were continued under the former dispensation. 

Aalnoug most commonly designates oral communication. But since 
the writer here affirms, that God had spoken (λαλήσας) πολυτρόπως, 
it must of course be understood, (as indeed it is often used), to desig- 
nate the more general idea of communication made in any manner, by 
visions, symbols, etc., as well as by voices. 

Τοῖς πατράσι, ancestors; see Wahl’s Lex. We might naturally ex- 
pect that ἡμῶν would be subjoined ; but Paul commonly uses the word 
πατέρες in the sense just noted, without the pronoun annexed. See 
Rom. 9: 5. 11 : 28. 15:8. 

‘Ey τοῖς προφήταις, by the prophets. The use of ἐν with the Dat. 
instead of διά with the Gen. is frequent in the N. ‘Test.; as any one 
may see in Wahl’s Lex., ἐν No. 3. a. The frequent use of it in this 
way, is Hebraism; for ἐν corresponds to the Hebrew 2, which is em- 
ployed with great latitude of signification, and in cases of the same 
nature as that in question; 6. g. Hosea 1: 2, the word of the Lord by 
Hosea, 28172. But an occasional use of ἐν in a similar way by ‘native 
Greek writers, may also be found; e.g. Thucyd. VII. 11, what has 
been done before, ye know ἐν ἄλλαις πολλαῖς ἐπιστολαῖς, by many other 
letters. 

Προφήταις in the language of the New Testament means, not only 
those who predict future events, but all who are employed by God to 
make religious communications of any kind to his people. 

‘Ex ἐσχάτου τῶν yueo@v—many copies read, ἐπ᾿ ἐσχάτων τῶν 
ἡμερῶν. The Seventy use both forms of expression, as a translation of 
the Hebrew Dua MAT; thus shewing that they were regarded by 
them as synonymes. It is a matter of indifference, as to the sense of the 
text, which reading is adopted. 

The meaning of the phrase is best understood, from a comparison of 
the corresponding expressions in Hebrew. In the Old Testament, 
DVT ΠΣ, MANN, JQ AN, and Ἰ ὑπὸ 517, are often employ- 
ed synonymously ; and all of them to designate the general idea of here- 


280 HEBREWS I. 1. 


after, at a future time, in the sequel. Whether this future time be 
more or less remote, depends entirely on the context and scope of the 
passage; see Gen. 49:1. Num. 24: 14. Deut. 4:30. Prov. 31: 25. 
But 2979777 N°7,58, in particular, is used to denote the future period in 
which the Messiah (0 ἐρχόμενος) was to appear; Is. 2:2. Hos. 3: 5, 
Micah 4: 1. Joel3: 1 [2:28], 135- πὸ. This phrase, (as it would 
seem from the usage in these places), early passed into a kind of tech- 
nical designation of the time of the Messiah, or rather of the new dis- 
pensation under him. Thus Rabbi Nachmanides on (Gen. 49: 1) says, 
“All our doctors agree, that D°72973 M7408 means the times of the Mes- 
stah.” That such a use of the phrase in question was already an es- 
tablished one in the time of our Saviour, is abundantly evident from the 
frequency with which αἱ ἔσχαται ἡμέραι is employed in the New Tes- 
tament, in order to designate the period of the Christian dispensation. 
Like other appellations brought into use in a similar way (comp. Luke 
7: 20), it continued to be employed after the “last days,’ i. 6. the 
Christian dispensation, had commenced ; and it is employed to desig- 
nate any part of the time which this dispensation comprises ; being lim- 
ited only by the context, in the same manner as the Hebrew 408, 
etc., as exhibited above. In John 6: 39, 40, 44, 54, and 11 : 24, ἐσχα- 
TH ἡμέρα is indeed used to denote the end of time, when the resurrec- 
tion of the dead will take place. But in each of these cases ἀναστή- 
6 ot ἀνάστασις accompanies it, so as to save all doubt in respect to 
its meaning. In all other cases, it designates the period of the new dis- 
pensation. Many synonymous expressions are also employed to desig- 
nate the same idea; e. g. ὁ ἔσχατος καιρός, οἵἱ ἔσχατοι καιροί, ἡ ἐσχα- 
τὴ wea, and ὕστεραι καιροί. 

The Jews, it is said, divided the periods of the world into m7 B24 oF, 
the present age or world, i. e. the period of the Mosaic dispensation, and 
ΝΞ’ Dbisn, the age or world to come, i.e. the time of the Messiah’s 
reign. The former is called, in the New Testament, ὁ «iv οὗτος, ὁ 
νῦν αἰὼν τοῦ κόσμου τούτου, ὁ αἰὼν ὁ ἐνεστὼς, ὁ καιρὸς οὗτος, and 
0 aiwy; the latter, 0 αἰών ὁ μέλλων---ἐρχύμενος---ἐχεῖνος, οἱ αἰῶνες 
οἱ ἐπερχόμενοι, ἢ οἰκουμένη ἡ μέλλουσα. This latter class of expres- 
sions, thus understood, are equivalent to the phrases ἔσχαται ἡμέραι, 
ἔσχατον ἡμερῶν, etc. 

Such is the representation of Wahl (on the word αἰών in his lexi- 
con), of Bretschneider (Lex.), and of other critics, in regard to this sub- 
ject. But that it is too definitely made, and therefore not in all respects 
well founded, is quite clear from the very authority to which Wahl re- 


HEBREWS 1.1. 281 


fers ; i. 6, Buxtorf. Lex. Chald. sub voc. 2549. The Rabbins certainly 
used mpm DD1y for mundus hic, mundus habitabilis, the earth; also for 
mundus medius, i. e. the regions of the air, stars, firmament, ete; and 
for mundus supremus, i. 6. of angels and spirits. It is equally certain, 
that they employed Nam DD4¥ for mundus post resurrectionem mortuo- 
rum, mundus animarum a corpore solutarum, as well as for the age of 
the Messiah. Buxtorf merely says: “ Quidam per 8377 D>42 intelligunt 
twin min, dies Messiae.” It would seem, then, that Wahl, Bret- 
schneider and others, have made an excessive use of the supposed Rab- 
binic sense of the word αἰών. 

Be this however as it may, still, from the Old Testament usage we 
may easily make out, (as I have endeavoured to do), the sense of ἐπ᾽ 
ἐσχάτου τῶν ἡμέρων. ‘She phrase in Heb. 1: 1, appears to mean dur- 
ing the last dispensation, or under the last period, viz. that of the Mes- 
siah. 

Τούτων, vunse last days, is as much as to say, ‘ The period in ques- 
tion has already commenced.’ 

“Huiv, to us, by a κοίνωσις, i. 6. a figure of speech or mode of speak- 
ing, in which the writer jos himself with those whom he addresses. 
The meaning is, to Christians, to the church ; not excluding others, but 
intending still to designate, in this place, particularly himself and those to 
whom he wrote. So Luke uses ἡμῖν for Christians, in chap. 1: 1; 
and Paul in like manner, often in his epistles. If we insist here that 
ἡμῖν is to be literally and strictly taken, (as those do, in respect to 2:8, 
who argue against the Pauline origin of our epistle from ὑπὸ τῶν ἀκου- 
σάντων εἰς ἡμᾶς ἐθεβαιωώϑη there), then this passage would be a 
direct contradiction of the sentiment in 2:3, inasmuch as it will con- 
tain a declaration, that the Son himself spoke to the writer of our epis- 
tle, and to those whom he addressed. 

"Ev υἱῷ, i.e. διὰ tov υἱοῦ. So Chrysostom and Theophylact; for 
ἐν here is used as above, in ἐν τοῖς προφήταις. That the article 
would be added to υἱῷ here, if the phrase was constructed according to 
the common usage of the Greek language and of the New Testament 
writers, is quite obvious ; although I find none of the modern commen- 
tators who take notice of it. In accordance with this principle, both 
Chrysostom and Theophylact supply it in their paraphrase, expressing the 
sense διὰ τοῦ υἱοῦ. After all the rules which have been laid down 
respecting the insertibn or omission of the article in Greek, and all the 
theories which have been advanced, he who investigates for himself, 
and is guided only by facés, will find not a little that is arbitrary in the 

36 


282 HEBREWS I. 1, 2. 


actual use of it. The cases are certainly very numerous, where Greek 
writers insert or reject it at pleasure. What is this but an arbitrary 
use of it? Some very sensible remarks on this subject may be found, 
in Lawrence’s Remarks on our English Version. 

It is plain, in the present case, that υἱῷ is monadic ; that it desig- 
nates one individual peculiarly distinguished; and that the pronoun 
αὐτοῦ is omitted after it; on all which accounts (according to theory) 
the article should be added. But all the Codices of the New Testa- 
ment agree in omitting it. The circumstance is in itself of but little 
importance; still, as it has an important bearing upon ¢heortes which 
respect the use of the article, it well deserves particular notice. 

It may be, however, that υἱῷ in this case is employed as a kind of 
proper name, (just as we now use it); and on this account it omits the 
article, by a license usual in respect to proper names. So Bloomfield in 
his N. Test. 

Some distinguished commentators have maintained, that the senti- 
ment of Heb. 1: 1, is in direct opposition to the opinion commonly re- 
ceived by the Christian fathers, and still very generally maintained, viz., 
that the Son of God made all the revelations to the ancient prophets ; 
and that all the éheophanies mentioned in the Old ‘Testament, are to be 
ascribed to the Logos. ‘These commentators suppose that their own 
views, in opposition to the sentiment of those fathers, are confirmed by 
Heb. 2: 1—4, where the aggravated guilt of those who reject the gos- 
pel which was revealed by the Son of God, is urged, and the writer 
grounds the fact of its beng aggravated, upon the assumption that the 
law in ancient times was spoken only by the mediation of angels. But 
still, though this reasoning seems to be satisfactory at first view, it 
should be remembered that the writer is there, as well as in Heb. 1: 1, 
speaking of the Son of God as incarnate, as possessing our nature and 
addressing us in it. In this manner he did not address the church in 
ancient times; and the emphasis may lie upon this circumstance ; 
comp. John 1: 14. For that the Logos, or Christ in his divine nature, 
did make revelations to the ancient church, seems to be an obvious de- 
duction from John 12: 41. 1 Cor. 10:4. 10:9, and other like passa- 
ges. 
(2) “Ov ἔϑηκε κληρονόμον πάντων, whom he has constituted Lord of 
all, 1. 6. of the world. “#Onx«, constituted, appointed, ordained; see 
Wahl on τίϑημι, No.3. In the same sense the Greeks employ τέϑημε. 

Kinoovouor, lord, possessor in accordance with the Heb. idiom. In 
classic Greek, κληρονόμος means, (1) One who acquires any thing by 


, 


HEBREWS I. 9, = 


lot. (2) One who inherits any thing after the ith - the possessor. 
The Son inherited the world in neither of these ways; consequently 
κληρονόμος here is employed in the manner of the Hebrew 77, which 
means to take into possession in any manner, or simply to acquire. To 
inherit is only a secondary sense of S32. The Latins employed haeres 
in asense like that here assigned to κληρονόμος. Thus Justinian, 
Inst. IT. 19. § ult., Pro haerede gerere, est pro domino gerere; veteres 
enim haeredes pro dominis appellabant. So Festus, Haeres apud antiquos 
pro domino ponebatur ; comp. Gal. 4:1. Acts 10:36. 2: 36. Ps. 89: 
27 [28]. John 17: 10, which confirm the interpretation here given, as 
to the sentiment which it conveys. 

Ai οὗ, by whom. It is contended here, that διά is not limited to sig- 
nify the instrumental cause (so called), but that it often designates the 
principal cause. 'This is true; see Wahl on διά, 1. c. where both the 
classical and New Testament usage of dvc, in this sense, is shewn. 
But there is still a philological possibility of the sense which Grotius 
gives it here, viz. on account of whom; see Wahl No. 2, and to the in- 
stances there adduced of διά used with the Gen., and signifying on ac- 
count of, add Rom. 5: 19 bis. 8: 3, and perhaps 2 Cor. 9: 13 and 2 
Pet. 1: 3, διὰ δόξης. In all these cases, however, διά does not proper- 
ly denote the final cause or end for which a thing is done; but only a 
motive for doing it, an instrument as it were in bringing it about. To 
say that the worlds were made on account of the Son, as the final end 
or object of them, would imply something more than saying, or some- 
thing different from saying, that they were made by him. The sense, 
however, which Grotius puts upon dee, cannot be defended by any ex- 
amples sufficiently plain, or cogent enough, to justify the admission of it 
in this place. 

Τοὺς αἰῶνας ἐποίησε, he [i. 6. Pe0¢] made the. world. So, beyond 
any reasonable doubt, aéwveg is to be understood in 11:3, and in 1 
Tim. 1:17. The singular (αἰώνν is also occasionally employed to 
designate world; 6. g. Mat. 13: 40, 49. 28:20. 1 Cor. 3: 18. Eph. 1: 
21. 1 Tim.6:17. The classical use of αἰών is, (1) Age, period of 
time. (2) Age of man, time of life, life itself. _Aimvas, then, is used 
here, (like ni, ΕΝ , in the Chaldee and later Hebrew), for world 
or worlds. There appears to be no difference between the plural and 
singular form of ewy, taken in the sense now in question; a case 
which is very frequent in regard to a great number of words in Greek 
and Hebrew; 6. g. in respect to J2U9,5N, D1, etc., also σάβθβατον, 
οὐρανός, etc. The Hebrews do not appear to have had the idea of any 


284 HEBREWS L. 3. 


other habitable worlds besides the earth. Hence if αἰώνες be design- 
ed to have a plural meaning in the instances in Heb. 1:2. 11:3: 1 
Tim. 1: 17, then the meaning must be present world and future world.~ 
But I apprehend the meaning of the writer to be simply, that ‘God 
made the world by his Son ;’ in which, however, is involved the idea, 
that he made all things. 

Theodoret explains it as meaning, ages ; and so others have since done, 
But what is the sense of the assertion, that God made the ages by his 
Son? If we understand this of the common periods of the life of man ; 
or (with Theodoret) of the ages of the world; or of the Jewish and 
Christian dispensations, with others ; what is it to the writer’s purpose 
to assert this, in a passage which ts evidently designed to shew the ez- 
alted preéminence of the Son of God? As to the sentiment conveyed 
by the interpretation which I have adopted, viz. he made the world, it is 
confirmed by Eph. 3:9. Col. 1: 15--19. John 1: 3,10. 1Cor.8: 6. 
Heb. 1:10. See Excursus I. II; and for the sense of αἰών, comp. 
my essay on this word in the Spirit of the Pilgrims, Aug. 1829, pp. 423- 
447 seq. 

(3) “Oc ὧν ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης καὶ χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως 
αὐτοῦ. The ancient Greek commentators, and after them most of the 
modern ones, have applied these words to the divine nature of Christ. 
An examination of the imagery which they present, 1s necessary in or- 
der to develope their real meaning. 

’Anavyaoue means radiance, light flowing from a luminous body, 
and is a derivate of ἀπαυγάζω, i. q. αὐγάζω, to shine, to emit splendour. 
Aoéa in classical Greek means, (1) Opinion, sentiment, supposition, 
mazim. (2) Fame, honour, reputation. But in our text, it plainly 
means the same as the Hebrew "1133 often does, viz. splendour, bright- 
ness; comp. Luke 2:9. 9:31. Acts 22:11. 7:55. Matt. 6:29. 1 
Cor. 15: 41. 

Xaoazryg is properly an engraving or stamping instrument, or a 
person who engraves or stamps. But it is very commonly employed for 
the figure itself or the image engraved or stamped, e. g. upon coins, 
stones, metal, wood, or wax. So our English version, express image, 
i. 6. image expressed or stamped. Hence, because the resemblance 
between the figure enstamped and the instrument by which it is en- 
stamped is so exact, χαρακτήρ also means exact image, resemblance or 
delineation. 

“Ὑπόστασις, in the classical sense anciently attached to it, means, 
(1) Foundation, substratum, substructio. (2) Steadfastness. (3) Pur- 


HEBREWS I. 3. Q85 


pose, resolution, determination. (4) Substance, essence, being. In the 
sense of person, it first began to be used by the Greek writers after the 
Arian controversy commenced. It was employed particularly in this 
way by Athanasius, in order that he might make a distinction between 
οὐσία and ὑπόστασις, while he maintained that the persons (πρόσωπα) 
in the Trinity were of one οὐσία, but yet were three ὑποστάσεις. The 
sense of person, then, being attached to this word long after the New 
Testament was written, it cannot be properly assigned to the word 
here. It plainly retains the more ancient meaning of substance or es- 
sence. 

The nature of the imagery presented by the two phrases in our verse, 
may be thus explained. If God be represented to us under the image 
of splendour, or of a luminary or source of light, then is Christ the ra- 
diance of that splendour, or the light emitted from that luminary. That 
is, as a luminous body becomes perceptible in consequence of the light 
radiated from it, so God has manifested or exhibited himself to us in the 
person of his Son. 70 the same purpose John says, ‘‘ No man hath 
seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of 
the Father, he hath revealed him, John 1:18.” So again, “He that 
hath seen me, hath seen the Father, 14: 9: and again, “‘ He that 
seeth me, seeth him that sent me, 12:45.” In Col. 1: 15, Christ is 
called “the image of the invisible God,” i. 6. he by whom the invisible 
God is, as it were, presented to our inspection. In him God has ex- 
hibited to man the perfections of his character, i. e. has exhibited τὴν 
δόξαν αὐτῦυ, which word is figuratively used to designate the divine 
perfections. So 2 Cor. 4:6, δόξης τοῦ ϑεοῦ ἐν προσώπῳ ᾿Μησοῦ 
“Χριστοῦ, i.e. the divine perfections as displayed by Jesus Christ; ἃ 
_ phrase of the like nature with that which I am endeavouring to explain. 

Again; if God be represented under the image of ὑπόστασις, sub- 
stance, essence, then is Christ the development of that substance to our 
view ; he is the image, representation, or delineation of it. As an im- 
age upon a coin presents the exact lineaments of the stamp which made 
it, so does Christ present the χαραχτήρ of the Father; he presents us 
with his likeness, i. e. reveals to us, in his person and work, just and 
proper views of the perfections of the Father. In accordance with 
these views, the old Syriac version renders ὑπόστασις αὐτοῦ by 


—— —— ---------- 0ὃὕ0ἅ.0.»ὄ - 


A 
σι2ο Zs) , his substance. 


That both expressions are to be understood /iguratively, is beyond 
all doubt ; for God is not, in a literal sense, splendour or a leminous sub- 


286 HEBREWS L. 3. 


stance; nor is his ὑπόστασις in itself considered, i. e. physically or 
metaphysically considered, capable of being represented to our senses. 
In the opinion, that the verse now under consideration relates to the 
incarnate Messiah, and not to the Logos in his divine nature simply 
considered, I find that Scott and Beza concur; not to mention others 
among the most respectable commentators. See Excursus III. 
Déowy... τῆς δυνάμεως αὐτοῦ, sustaining, i. 6. guiding, managing, 
controlling, the universe by his own powerful word. So Chrysostom : 
φέρων, τουτέστι κυβερνών, Ta διαπίπτοντα συγχρατῶν, governing, 
holding together that which is ready to fall asunder or pr eserving that 
which is ready to perish. So Paul says of Christ, as e¢xwv τοῦ ϑεοῦ, 
that he is before all things, καὶ τὰ πάντα ἐν αὐτῷ συνέστηκε, Col. 1: 
17. Φέρων thus employed, corresponds to the Hebrew NW2 as used in 
Is. 46: 3. 66: 9, in the sense of curo, conservo, to sustain, to preserve, 
as a mother does her child. ‘The Greeks sometimes joined φέρειν and 
ἄγειν in the same phrase, in order to express the administration of af- 
fairs. To πάντα is a common expression in Greek, for the universe. 


beset) ~ x ' ε ~ εἶ 
να tn Ὁ ῥήματι τὴς δυνάμεως αὐτοῦ, by his own powerful word. Sucha 
χὰ WA | Ἢ a * = -,σ- 


mode of expression is not, as Ernesti names it, properly Hebraism ; for 
it is very common in all Janguages, although more frequent in the orien- 
tal than in the occidental tongues. ““ὑτοῦ, sc. ἑαυτοῦ (not avrov), 
i. 6. by Ats own powerful word, viz. the word of the Son, and not by the 
word of God as αὐτοῦ would mean. The meaning of the whole phrase 

, ‘ He directs and controls the universe by his own omnipotent word.’ 
It seems to be evidently an expression of the like nature with “God 
said, Let there be light, and there was light, Gen. 1: 3;” also, “‘ He 
spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast, Ps. 33: 9.” 
In other terms, ‘The Son has the universe at the control of his mere 
word;’ an expression signifying omnipotent, irresistible control. But 
inasmuch as the universe was created by him (verse 2), it surely can- 
not appear strange that he who made it should control it. 

Ae ἑαυτοῦ... τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν, having by himself made expia- 
tion for our sins. Αιαϑαρισμὸς usually means purification; but in 
Hellenistic Greek it is also employed for expiation ; e.g. in Ex. 29: 36. 
30: 10, the Seventy use it for the Hebrew D°715D7 , atonement, expia- 
tion. That χαϑαρισμὸν cannot be used here in the simple sense of 
purification by moral means, such as doctrine, etc. , is evident from its 
being joined with dc ἑαυτοῦ ; which is explained in 2: 14, by dva του 
ϑανάτου; in 9: 12, by διὰ tov ἰδίου αἵματος ; and in 9: 26, by διὰ 


ἨΕΒΕΒΎΒΙ. 9, 4. 287 


τῆς ϑυσίας αὑτοῦ. This last expression I regard as the full form, 
expressing what is elliptically expressed in our text by dv ἑαυτοῦ. 

After he had thus by the sacrifice of himself made expiation for sin, 
ἐχάϑισεν ἐν δεξιῷ τῆς μεγαλωσύνης ἐν ὑψηλοῖς, he sat down at the 
right of the majesty on high, i.e. of God in the highest heavens, ovge- 
voig being understood after ὑψηλοῖς ; or of supreme majesty, (see 
Wahl’s Lex. on ovgavog). The verb ἐχάϑεσε here corresponds to the 
Hebrew 27, which applied to God and to kings, does not mean sim- 
ply to sit, but to sit enthroned, to sit on a throne ; 6. g. Ps. 2:4, and 
often. To sit on a throne, or to sit at the right hand of one on athrone, 
implies commanding, ruling, judging. 

“ηεγαλωσύνης, majesty, magnificence, NAN, >A, meta. Here 
it is the abstract (as grammarians say) used for the concrete, i. e. on 
the right hand of the maestic One or the magnificent One, viz. 
siaD5 bs 155. So Liber Enochi (Fabricii Cod. Pseudep. V. T. 
p. 187), ἐνώπιον τῆς δόξης τῆς μεγαλωσύνης. See Excursus IV. 

(4) Zooovrw κρείττων... ὄνομα, being exalted as much above the 
angels, as he has obtained an appellation more honorable than they. 
Kosittwyr, praestantior, augustior, of higher rank or place, eminentior. 
Tevouevos, constituted, rendered, etc. It is here applied to the eleva- 
tion of the Son to the mediatorial throne, after his death. “Παφορώτε- 
Θον, more eminent, more distinguished; nao αὐτούς, than they, i. 6. 
than the angels. ITwoa after the comparative degree, is not common 
out of this epistle ; but the like examples are in Luke3: 13. 3 Esd. 4: 35. 
It makes of itself a comparative degree, as used in Luke 13: 2. Rom. 
1:25. 14:5. Heb. 1:9. 2:7. Kexdnoovounze, obtained, acquired, 
as in verse 2d. Ὄνομα, either name, i. 6. title as υἱός, or rank, digni- 
ty. Commentators are divided in opinion, respecting which of these 
meanings should be preferred. But the argument in the sequel shews, 
that the title SON is the ground on which the superiority of Christ 
over the angels is proved. If it be objected that angels are also called 
sons, and men too, the answer is easy. No one individual except Je- 
sus, 15 ever called by way of eminence tHE Son of God, i. 6. the Mes- 
siah or the king of Israel, John 1 : 49. 

The appeal is here made to Jewish readers of the Old Testament, 
who applied Ps. 2:7 and 2 Sam.7:14 to the Messiah. In such a 
sense as in these passages, namely one that imported supreme dominion 
and authority, neither angels nor men were called sons of God. But 
Jesus bore this title, which according to the Jewish Scriptures was in- 
dicative of supreme dignity; and consequently he had an appellation of 


IRS HEBREWS I. 5. 


a more exalted nature than that of the angels, who are servants (1: 14), 
not lords. 

(5) Tive yao... γεγέννηκα os, for to which of the angels said he at 
any time, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee? Teyévvy- 
χα σὲ must of course be figuratively understood. But how? In Ps. 
τι. the context shews that the expression here quoted has reference to 
Christ as king, as constituted king or lord over all; see ys. 6, 8, etc. 
To beget is metaphorical language suited to the name Son ; but as Son 
here plainly means the Messiah or the anointed King, dropping the 
metaphor we come of course to the meaning, constituted, made, appoint- 
ed, substantially like that of γενόμενος above. 

In regard to σήμερον, which has been often construed as meaning 
from eternity, Theodoret has plainly expressed its true sense ; οὐ τὴν 
αἰώνιον δηλοῖ γέννησιν, ἀλλὰ τὴν τῷ χρόνῳ συνεζευγμένην, it does 
not express his eternal generation, but that which ts connected with time. 
For surely Christ was exalted to the mediatorial throne in time, i. e. 
after his resurrection ; and such an exaltation is the subject of descrip- 
tion in the second Psalm. Such a view of the meaning the context 
also demands, where his acquired condition is the particular subject of 
comparison with the rank and condition of the angels. So Chrysostom, 
after quoting v.5,says: ταῦτα εἴρηται μὲν εἰς τὴν σάρκα, this is spoken 
concerning his human nature. And so Paul (Acts 13: 33 seq.) explains 
the passage in Ps. 2: 7, quoted in the present verse. 

᾿βγὼ ἔσομαι... εἰς υἱόν. In common Greek it would be, ἐγὼ ἔσο- 
μαν πατὴρ αὐτοῦ... .. υἱὸς μου. The form of expression αὐτῷ εἰς 
πατέρα, corresponds altogether to the Hebrew 28> 15; and μοί εἰς 
υἱόν, to ἼΞΞ %2, 2 Sam. 7: 14, whence the quotation is taken. The 
term Son, seems here to designate one who should be entitled to all the 
rights and privileges of a Son; and in particular, one who should be an 
heir to the throne of his Father. This same figurative expression, heir- 
ship, being heir, the writer has applied to the Son in the context, vs. 2, 
4. Now asthe angels are not entitled to such privileges, the appella- 
tion Son, (which implies a right to them in this case), shews that he to 
whom it is applied, is elevated above the angels. And this is the posi- 
tion which the argument in Heb. 1. is designed to establish. 

If we may credit Abarbanel, the ancient Jewish doctors held that the 
Messiah would be exalted above Abraham, Moses, and the angels. 
However this may be, the apostle in applying this and the following 
quotations to the Messiah, must have supposed himself addressing those 
who would readily concede that they ought to be thus applied. Other- 


HEBREWs |. 6. 289 


wise we cannot suppose that he could have regarded this mode of reas- 
oning as at all efficacious, or adapted to convince those to whom he 
wrote. 

(6) “Orav δὲ mah... λέγει, an exceedingly controverted, and some- 
what difficult passage. J/aAcy is rendered contra, ex adverso, im Ge- 
gentheile, on the other hand, on the contrary, by some respectable com- 
mentators. But, although no doubt the word has such a meaning at 
times, yet here there does not seem to be any antithesis to the senti- 
ment which precedes, but accession, 1. 6. a new argument is here added 
in order to shew the dignity of the Son. Others join macy with εἶσα- 
γάγῃ, and render the phrase thus: when he again introduces his first 
begotten into the world. 'This seems to be the plainest and most ob- 
vious construction of the Greek as it now stands; but the difficulty with 
this interpretation is, that no introduction into the world has been be- 
fore mentioned ; to what, then, can a second introduction here relate ? 

I must therefore prefer another sense of πάλιν here, viz. at another 
time, or xather, on another occasion; a sense which the reader will see 
very clearly exhibited in John 1:35. 8: 12,21. Acts 17:32. I would 
separate madcv here from the rest of the verse by commas, and then 
the whole runs on smoothly thus: moreover when, on another occasion, 
he introduces his first begotten into the worid, he saith, etc. In this 
way of construing the phrase, I do not feel the need of seeking to vin- 
dicate a transposition or metathesis of ὅταν and πάλεν, by a reference 
to Rom. 1: 20. 5: 6. 1 Cor. 1: 2 (with Kuinoel), or to Acts 19 : 27. 
1 Cor. 4: 18. 2 Cor. 7: 6 (with Abresch), for examples of transposi- 
tion. It is true that καὶ πάλεν is, in this epistle, the usual mode of 
designating repeated quotations from Scripture; see 1: 5. 2: 13 bis, 
10: 50. But in all these examples, the quotations are intimately con- 
nected in respect to oneness of design, 1. 6. they relate very intimately 
to one and the same subject or position. But in the case before us, a 
new argument is introduced in order to establish or illustrate the digni- 
ty of Christ; and this is very appropriately introduced by employing 
δέ, instead of καί which is used in the other examples just noticed ; for 
dé is often employed in such a way, although it never begins a sen- 
tence. I apprehend that the writer, in choosing ὅταν δὲ macy instead 
of πάλιν δὲ orev, meant plainly to distinguish his transition to a 
new topic, or rather, a new argument; for παάλὲν δὲ would natural- 
ly have indicated the same connection as xa? πάλεν, which would not 
comport with the object of the author, who now passes to a new subject 


of consideration. This circumstance, which seems to be overlooked by 
37 


290 HEBREWS I. 6. 


the critics, so far as I know, appears to render any eflort to account for 
a supposed metathesis, quite unnecessary. 

Only one difficulty remains. What can be the meaning of εἰσαγάγῃ 
... Οἰχουμένην 7 The most simple and best established sense of o¢xou- 
μένην is world, meaning (pro re nata) either habitable world, or world 
of men. But what is it to introduce the first begotten to the world, or 
into the world? Does this relate to the birth of Christ, or to his mis- 
sion as a teacher? So far as the language merely is concerned, it 
may be interpreted in either way. And in respect to historical facts 
one might say, after comparing Luke 1: 11 seq. 1:26 seq. 2:8 seq. 
that the writer of our epistle probably referred in his own mind, to the 
homage which angels paid the infant Saviour. But a re-examination 
of this whole subject has now led me to believe, that the laws of exege- 
sis here require us to understand the writer as referring to something 
said in the Old Testament concerning Christ, inasmuch as he classes 
the words that follow, with other citations from the same Scriptures. 
On the same ground, also, I must now understand εἰσαγάγῃ as refer- 
ring to an introduction of the Saviour into the world, which is describ- 
ed in the Old Testament Scriptures, and not to his actual introduction 
itself, considered simply as a historical fact. Most evidently the writer 
means to appeal to a passage of Scripture, which he regards as having 
relation to the introduction of the Messiah among men. He means 
therefore to say, that ‘on another occasion [different from those he had 
just named], God says, when speaking of the Messiah as introduced in- 
to the world, Let all the angels, etc.’ The usage of the sacred writers 
in speaking of that which is declared to be done or predicted, as being 
done by the prophets who make such declaration or utter such predic- 
tion, is well known; 6. g. Jer. 1: 10. Is. 6: 10, ete. 

Tlowroroxoy, so far as the etymology is concerned, may mean first- 
born or first-begotten. The latter is the sense here, because the Son 
is here considered as related to the Father. But the title first-begotten 
I do not regard as having reference here to time merely or principally, 
but, like the Heb. 1122, meaning the Son who has the preeminence 
above all things, and is destined to the throne of the kingdom. 

There is scarcely room for any doubt, moreover, that the writer 
means to quote here from Ps. 97:7. See Excursus VI. The Jews, as 
Kimchi declares, construed Ps. xcmi.—ci. as having relation to the 
Messiah. Whatever may be true in regard to this, however, as to most 
of these Psalms, it is clear that there is nothing in Ps. 97, which con- 
tradicts the exegesis that Paul here puts upon it. The whole Psalm 


HEBREWS I. 6, 7. 291 


may very well be understood as referring to wer ΗΝ in of the gos- 
pel-dispensation, the new and glorious reign of Jehovah, the true king- 
dom of God; and this by means of the Messiah whose reign is now to 
be established, and who is to be acknowledged as Lord of all. I con- 
cede that this is not a necessary interpretation, so far as the mere 
words of the Psalm are concerned ; but, with such a leader as Paul, we 
may well follow the interpretation given in the verse before us, since 
no important objections can be raised against it in the way of philology. 
Some difficulties not here noticed, are touched upon in the aah 
to which I must refer the reader. 

Kav... ϑεοῦ. Koi here exhibited does not appear in Ps. 97:7 
(96:7). Lregard it, therefore, as an intensive particle here, added by 
the apostle with the design of expressing strongly the Hebrew 10nU7 
I have not expressed it in the translation; but one might render ‘the 
phrase thus: let all the angels of God indced worship him, or even pay 
him obeisance or adoration. Whether the worship here spoken of is 
spiritual, seems to be in some good measure determined by the nature 
of the beings who are commanded to render it. Civil homage can 
hardly be predicated of angels. Still the worship in question is, no doubt, 
the homage paid to him who is constituted King and Lord over the new 
and universal empire, the kingdom of God, which the 97th Psalm cele- 
brates as being established. 

Calvin’s view of the whole exactly coincides with the interpretation 
above. In respect to Ps. 97 he says: Si... totum Psalmum percurras, 
nihil aliud videbis quam regnum Christi...nec aliud est argumentum 
Psalmi, quam veluti solenne diploma, quo in ejus regni possessionem 
mittitur Christus. Of εἰσαγάγῃ he says: Apte hic apostolus, quum 
dicit ipsum introduci in orbem, quia scilicet illic ejus ad homines ad- 
ventus describitur. 

(7) Kai πρὸς μὲν... πυρός, with respect to the angels, also, he saith, 
Who maketh his angels winds, and his ministering servants flaming fire ; 
i. 6. who maketh his angels that serve him the ministers of his will, as 
the winds and the lightning are. The Hebrew o> ws, and Greek 
πυρὸς φλόγα, often mean lightning ; as plainly they do here. The 
whole phrase is susceptible of another interpretation ; viz. who making 
his angels winds, i.e. swift as the winds, and his servants lightning, 
i. e. rapid, or terrible, or resistless as the lightning. But this does not 
suit the design for which the apostle quotes it, so well as the first inter- 
pretation. His object is to shew, that the angels are employed simply 
in a ministerial capacity; while the Son is Lord of all. Our English 


292 ; HEBREWS I, 7, 8. 


version, which has rendered nimin (Ps. 104: 4) by spirits, gives an 
erroneous view of the meaning of the original. 

Others construe the Hebrew original thus: who maketh the winds his 
messengers, and the kghtning his servants ; and they defend this by al- 
leging, that the context in the Psalm shews the design of the writer to 
be only to declare the glory of God as displayed in the visible creation ; 
consequently it is inapposite to suppose him here to be speaking of the 
angels as an order of invisible intelligent beings. Butin Ps. 104: 1—3, 
the znvisible as well as visible majesty of God is described; and it is 
natural that the writer should proceed, and augment the force of his 
description, by introducing the angels as the ministering servants of the 
Deity. _ Besides, the Hebrew does not allow us properly to translate, 
who maketh the winds his angels or messengers. In order to mean 


now) mimin ὙΞΝ ΕΞ ΤῸΝ; comp. Ps. 104: 8. 1515} may Dvd, 
which surely cannot be rendered, ‘‘ Who maketh his chariot clouds.” 

Kai... μέν, the καί I take here to be a continuative (as it often is) 
which is equivalent to moreover, also, etiam. As to μέν it stands here 
as the sign of the protasis in the sentence to which it belongs, but (as 
is very often the case in such instances) is incapable of being translated ; 
see Bretschneider Lex. μεν, IT. 

It would seem that the Nom. to λέγει here cannot be ϑεός, for then 
the quotation would naturally be in the first person, as it is m v.5 
above. The Nom. is probably ἡ γραφή or ὁ vomog. A&yev may be 
rendered in the passive voice, to avoid expressing the Nom., since the 
writer has not expressed it; and so Storr and Schulz, hetsst es, it 2s 
said. So the usual appeal in the Mishna, 77283. Compare also φησί, 
in 1 Cor.6: 16. And in this view of the subject, Boehme coincides. 
The quotation in our verse is from Ps. 104: 4. 

(8,9) Πρὸς δὲ τὸν υἱόν... αἰώνιος, but respecting the Son [it is 
said], Thy throne, O God, is eternal. Ovovog is plainly the emblem 
of dominion; because kings, when acting in their capacity as rulers, 
were accustomed to sit on thrones. Ὁ ϑεύός is not the Nom. case, as 
some have maintained, but the Vocative. It is the usual Voc. and 
nearly the only form of it, throughout the Septuagint; e.g. Ps. 3: 7. 
4:1.5:10. 7:1, et passim. The Attics, moreover, frequently retain 
the form of the Nom. in the Voc. of the second declension ; Buttmann’s 
Gramm. ὃ 80. Note ἃ. To translate thus, God is thy throne, would 
be to introduce a mode of expression foreign to the usus loquendi 
of the Scriptures; for where is God ever said to be the throne of his 


HEBREWS I. 8, 9. 293 


creatures? And what could be the sense of ἊΝ an expression ? 
Throne is the emblem of dominion, not of support. So Theoph., 
ϑρόνος yao....0 βασιλείας σύμβολον. Figuratively used, as here, it 
is of the same import as sceptre, ὁάβδος. Gesenius formerly rendered 
the phrase, thy G'od’s throne is eternal, i. e. the throne which God gives 
thee. But must not the Hebrew then be 5°28 NO>? the pronoun 
following the second of the two nouns, in regimen, according to the 
usual custom, Heb. Gramm. § 473. a. A different construction is pos- 
sible, perhaps, as Ps. 71: 7. Ezek. 16:27. Lev. 6:3 may lead one to 
believe. In order to make out the meaning which Gesenius gives, it 
would seem necessary to admit an ellipsis here; e.g. [NO>] FRoD 
pbx, which will bear such asense; although no parallel to this sense, 
I believe, can be found. And so Gesenius, in the recent edition of his 
lexicon. The more natural. sense would be, ‘ Thou hast a part in the 
throne of God,’ or ‘Thou art seated on God’s throne;’ which would 
come substantially to the same sense as I have given above. 

“Ῥάβδος εὐθύτητος .... σου, a sceptre of justice is the sceptre of thy 
kingdom, or thy reign is just. 'The former clause declares the perpetu- 
ity of the Son’s reign; the present one, its equitable nature. Both 
speak of the future. It is quite plain, too, that the two clauses are a 
poetic parallelism, as they belong to Ps. 45: 7; and also that the sub- 
ject of both clauses is the same, viz. the dominion or reign of the Son 
or Messiah. 

"Hyannous....avoulay, thou hast loved righteousness and hated in- 
iquity, i.e. thou hast been “ holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from 
sinners ;” thou hast been perfectly innocent and upright, altogether 
obedient to the divine law; comp. Phil. 2:8, seq. Such a negative 
form of expression as zal ἐμέσησας ἀνομίαν, following an affirmative 
one, is very common in the Scriptures, and is designed to give intensi- 
ty to the affirmative assertion which precedes it; comp. John 1: 3, 20, 
et al. saepe. 

Ate τοῦτο..... ἀγαλλιάσεως, because of this, Ὁ God, thy God has 
anointed thee with the oil of gladness. But the phrase is equally sus- 
ceptible of the rendering, God, thy God, has anointed thee, ete; and 
this without any alteration of the general sense of the passage. Theo- 
phylact, however, thought otherwise ; for he says, ὁ ϑεὸς ἀντὶ τοῦ ὦ 
ee ἐστί, as our enemy Symmachus (here a credible witness) affirms, 
who renders the Hebrew thus, ϑεὲ, 0 ϑεὸς σου." 

"Lhawov ἀγαλλιάσεως, i.e. κατ᾽ ἔλαιον. Kings were anointed with 
oil, in order to consecrate them to their office; see Acts 4:27. Ps. 2 


204 HEBREWS I. 9. 


6. 1 Sam. 10:1. 16:13. Sirach 46:13. Perfumed oil or precious 
ointment was often employed, also, on festive occasions ; and honoured 
guests at an entertainment were frequently bedewed with it. But ἔλαι- 
ov ἀγαλλιάσεως here appears to mean the oil of consecration to office, 
viz. the office of king, to which the Messiah was promoted in conse- 
quence of his obedience, comp. Phil. 2: 8 seq. As to the phrase oil of 
gladness, it means perfumed or odoriferous oil, which was exhibited 
and used on occasions where there was much festivity and gladness. 
A joyful occasion would be the coronation season of the king Messiah, 
when the most precious and costly oil would be used to anoint him for 
his office. i 

Παρὼ τοὺς μετόχους σου, lit. in comparison with thine associates, 
i. 8. in Office, viz. kings. God has bestowed a higher reward, a greater 
honour on the king Messiah, than on any other kings. He has made 
him ‘ King of kings and Lord of lords.’ 

Thus much for the words. The general sentiment remains to be 
stated. ‘he words are quoted from Ps. 45: 6,7. That this whole 
psalm relates to the Messiah, has been generally believed by Jewish 
and Christian commentators; and it is at last acknowledged by Rosen- 
mueller, in the second edition of his Comm. in Psalmos. All other ex- 
planations seem liable to insuperable difficulties; and this, one may 
hope, will soon be universally felt and acknowledged. 

That the whole Psalm relates to the Messiah, however, as mediatorial 
king, can scarcely be doubted by any one who compares together all its 
different parts. This king is called BURSA &<0¢. Does the word 
ϑεὸς here denote the divine or the kingly nature or condition of the 
Messiah? Most interpreters, who admit the doctrine of the Saviour’s 
divine nature, contend for the first of these senses; as I have myself 
once done, in a former publication. But further examination has led 
me to believe, that there are grounds to doubt of such an application of 
the word @eog in this passage. The king here called ϑεύς, has for 
himself a Geog; “thy God hath anointed thee.” The same king has 
associates (μετόχους), i. 6. others who in some respects are in a similar 
condition or office. As divine, who are the μέτοχον with the Saviour, to 
whom he is preferred? Besides, his equity, his government, his state, as 
described in Ps. x1v., are all such as belong to the king Messiah. Now 
as Llohim is a title sometimes given to kings or magistrates, (see in Ps. 
82:1, 6, comp. John 10: 35, for in Ex. 7: 1 and 4: 16 it is a different 
case), although no one individual king or magistrate is ever called sim- 
ply Elohim, may not this title be applied in a sense altogether peculiar 


HEBREWS I. 9, 10. 295 


and preeminent to the Messiah as king, designating his great superiority 
over all other kings, and distinguishing him as σύνϑρονος with God, as 
‘King of kings, and Lord of lords?” Rev. 17: 14. Comp. Heb. 1: 3, 
and the note on ἐκάθεσεν ἐν δεξιᾷ x. τ. 4. Such an explanation, to 
say the least, removes some of the difficulties which attend the usual 
one; while the following verses leave no just room to doubt what was 
the opinion of the writer of our epistle, in regard to the divine nature of 
the Messiah. 

The perpetuity of the kingdom mentioned here, may be the same as 
that in Luke 1: 383; with which, however, it may be well to compare 
1 Cor. 15: 24—28. Indeed it must be such, allowing the kingdom of 
the Messiah to be the one which is here meant. 

(10) Kat, ov κατ᾽ ἀρχὰς... ἐθεμελίωσας, also [it is said], Thou, 
Lord, in the beginning didst lay the foundation of the earth. This 
verse is, by construction, necessarily connected with the preceding 
ones; v. 7, καὶ πρὸς μὲν τοὺς ἀγγέλους Aéyer—v. 8, πρὸς δὲ TOY υἱὸν 
[λέγει]----ν. 10, καὶ [i. 6. πρὸς τὸν υἱὸν λέγε]. An address to Jehovah 
here, considered simply as creator, is utterly irrelevant to the scope of 
the writer, and to the object which he evidently has in view. Both the 
grammatical construction and the plain design of the passage, unite in 
declaring this. Ἶ 

Kat ἀρχάς, for which the Heb. (Ps. 102 : 26) has p25, of old, 
formerly, equivalent to NX {3 in Gen. 1 : 1. Kite, inthe New Tes- 
tament and Septuagint, corresponds both to 4777 and 5& or DSN in 
the Hebrew. Here it corresponds to 5X, in Ps. 102: 24, Sept. 
᾿ΙΙϑεμελίωσας, thou hast laid the foundation; ϑεμελεύω, applied to a 
building, has this sense. But here it is, of course, applied in ἃ figura- 
tive manner, to designate the original and primary act of creation, (so 
to speak); viz. that act which may be compared to what a workman 
does when he lays the foundation of a building. The Son, therefore, 
did not merely arrange or set in order the materials of creation already 
brought into being, but laid the foundation of the universe, i. e. per- 
formed the original act or first work, viz. that of bringing it into being, 

"Eoye τῶν χειρῶν σου, 412 ΓΙΌΣ, the work of thy hands, i. q. thy 
work. The phrase is borrowed from the fact, that hands are the in- 
struments by which men usually perform any operation ; and this 15. 
like other human operations and affections, figuratively transferred to 
God. Οἱ οὐρανοί means all parts of the creation except the earth; 
see Gen. 1:1. The Hebrews designated the sun, moon, and stars, 


296 neBrews I. Jl, 12, 13. 


i. e. all the visible creation besides the earth, by the word D™72B , heav- 
ens. 

(11) Avro/, they, i. 6. the heavens and the earth. Dv δὲ διαμενεῖς, 
(Hebrew 472m), thou shalt continue, be permanent, stand fast. It is 
the opposite of ἀπολοῦνται. Παλαιωϑήσονται, shall wax old, a word 
which, applied to a garment (the image here used), means to go into a 
state of decay or desuctude, to become unfit for use. Hence the meta- 
phorical language that follows. 

(12) Kai woel.... αὐτούς, and as a vesture shalt thou fold them up. 
“Ehigerg means to fold up, to roll together. The heavens are often 
represented as an expanse (Σ 2), and rolling them up means, of 
course, to remove them. 'The language, however, in the case before us, 
is borrowed from the custom of folding up and laying aside garments, 
which have become unfit for use. 'The Hebrew word (for which ἑλέξεες 
is put) is ΛΣΤ 5, thou shalt change, remove. ᾿“λλαγήσονται, they shall 
decay, they shall be changed, i. e. be removed, taken away, or shall pass 
away, Hebrew 15>12,, Ps. 102: 26. Comp. 2 Pet. 3: 10. Is. 51: 6, al- 
so 34: 4, where the image is fully presented. Σὺ δὲ ὁ αὐτὸς εἶ (Heb. 
N17 MN1), thou art he, viz. he who liveth forever, thou art always the 
same. So the sequel leads us to interpret this. Je ἔτη σοὺ οὐκ ἐκλεί- 
wovot, thy years shall never cease or fail, i. e. shall never come to an 
end. 

This would be true, if it was spoken merely with reference to the fu- 
ture, and should be construed as having respect only to eternity a parte 
post, as it is technically called, 1. 6. eternity to come. But as it stands 
here, in connection with having created the heavens and the earth zar 
ἀρχάς, it can hardly be understood to mean less than absolute eternity, 
or eternity @ parte ante et a parte post. See Excursus VII. 

(13) Πρὸς tive: δὲ τῶν ἀγγέλων .... δεξιῶν μου, but unto which of 
the angels has he ever said, Sit at my righthand. 'That is, where is any 
example of his addressing any one of the angels, and asking him fo se¢ 
at his right hand, i. 6. to be σύνθρονος with him? See on δεξιᾷ με- 
γαλοσύνης, under v. 3 above. 

"Eng av ϑώ.... ποδῶν σου, until I shall make thine enemies thy 
footstool, i. 6. reduce them to the most entire subjection. These words 
are quoted from Ps. 110: 1 (Sept. 109: 1), and are applied to the Mes- 
siah. To make enemies a footstool, is an expression borrowed from the 
custom, in ancient times, of treading upon the necks of captives and 
captive kings, on the occasion of celebrating a triumph over them, and 
in token of their complete prostration and subjection; see Joshua 10: 


nEBReEws I, 13, 14. 297 


24, and often so in Homer. Enemies signifies all such as are opposed 
to the doctrines or duties of the Christian religion. In Ps. 110: 1, the 
Messiah is invited to sit at the right hand of God, (i. 6. at his right 
hand on his throne, comp. Rev. 3: 21), until (32, ἕως ἄν) his enemies 
should be utterly subdued. But what follows this period, when they 
shall have been thus subdued? The apostle has told us. It is the 
mediatorial throne to which the Messiah is exalted ; it is to him as con- 
stituted king, that his enemies are to be brought in subjection; and 
when this is accomplished, the mediatorial throne and reign, as such, 
are to cease. So 1 Cor, 15: 24—28 seems to assure us. 

(14) How different the station and employment of angels from those 
of the Messiah! He is σύνϑρονος with God, and commands the uni- 
verse; they are spirits employed merely as ministers to execute his will. 
Are they not all λειτουργικὰ πνεύματαῦ Comp. 1 K. 22:19. Zech. 
3:5—7. Dan. 7: 10. Is. 6: 1. Luke 1:19. By the Rabbins, the an- 
gels are frequently named NnAT WI NDA, angeli ministerti. His 
διακονίαν, for ministering, in order to serve, for the aid of. Ataxzovia 
means any kind of service or assistance whatever. It is here said to 
be performed διὰ rove μέλλοντας κληρονομεῖν σωτηρίαν, on account of 
those who are to obtain salvation, 1. e. on account of Christians who are 
the heirs of future glory or happiness, or who will obtain it. 

Whatever may be the opinion of some modern critics, in regard to 
the real existence of angels as intelligent beings ; it appears quite clear, 
that the writer of our epistle regarded them as such. To have insti- 
tuted a comparison between the Son of God on the one hand, and mere 
abstract qualities or imaginary beings on the other, would not seem to 
be very apposite, at least not apposite to any serious purpose. And if 
the writer looked upon angels as only imaginary beings or personifica- 
tions of qualities, with what propriety or consistency could he represent 
them as worshipping the Son of God, or as ministering to the saints? 
But Ps. 102: 3 is first erroneously translated, he maketh the winds his 
angels, and flaming fire his servants, λειτουργοὺς αὐτοῦ, and it is then 
used as a proof that the elements themselves are called angels. Hence 
it is concluded, that it is unnecessary to suppose angels to be an order 
of real intelligent beings. But as this translation is not well grounded 
(see on v. 7th), any such conclusion built upon it cannot be stable. 
That the sacred writers every where regard angels, and speak of them, 
as intelligent beings having a real existence, appears so plain, that it 
would seem as if no one, who is not strongly wedded to his own @ priort 
and philosophical reasoning, could venture to deny it. 

38 


7 


208 nesrews II. 1. 


CHAPROIE: 


(1) Ava τοῦτο, on this account, therefore, i.e. since Christ, who is 
at the head of the new dispensation, is so much exalted above the an- 
gels who were the mediators of the old (see v. 2), it becomes us, etc. 
‘“Huas, us by ποίνωσις, i. e. a method of speaking in which the writer 
includes himself with those whom he addresses. See § 27. 17, of the 
Introduction. 

ΤΙροσέχειν is elliptical, (προσέχειν τὸν νοῦν is the full expression), 
and means attendere, to give heed tov. Abresch thinks it is here equiv- 
alent to ἀντέχεσϑαε, retinere, tenaciter adhaerere ; which Dindorf also 
favours. But evidently this is unnecessary, inasmuch as περισσοτέρως 
is connected with it, and designates the zntensity of mind with which 
attention should be paid to the things that the Son of God reveals. 
᾿“κουσϑεῖσι, things heard, are the truths and doctrines of the Christian 
religion which had been declared to them; see vs. 3, 4. 

Hagagévemev, a long contested and difficult word. Two senses 
have been principally contended for; (a) Yo fall, to stumble, or to per- 
ish. This sense Chrysostom and Theophylact give it: maga@éuaper, 
τουτέστι, ἀπολώμεϑα, ἐκπέσωμεν. Both illustrate it by the proverbial 
saying, addressed to a child, υἱὲ, μὴ] παραῤρῥυῆς, Prov. 3: 21, in order 
to guard him against stumbling. In like manner Theodoret represents 
the word as spoken here, ἵνα μὴ τίνα ὄλισϑον ὑπομείνωμεν, so that 
we may not suffer a lapse, or may not stumble, fall. So Suidas explains 
it by παραπέσωμεν; Hesych. by ἐχπέσωμεν ; Lex. Cyrilli, μὴ παραρ- 
uns, μὴ ἐκπέσης, μὴ magaoveys. The Syriac and Arabic interpre- 
ters have rendered it, that we may not fall. Alberti and Matthiae, 
with many modern critics, assign to it the same sense. The idea con- 
nected with stumbling, falling, by this class of commentators, is not 
that of transgression, but of punishment, of destruction; as isevident 
from the whole of their illustrations, when compared each with himself 
and with the others. 

But, although this view of the word has been often given, none of the 
passages adduced from the Greek writers, and alleged to justify it, seem 
adequate for this purpose. Wetstein has collected a large number of 
passages, which contain the word in question. But most of them are 
only such as designate the well known senses of the word nagagéum, 
viz. to flow, to flow by; astm παρὰ πόλιν παραῤῥέοντι ποταμῷ (Plu- 
tarch); πιεῖν ano τοῦ παραῤθῥέοντος ποταμοῦ (Xen.); to flow into, 


neprews II. 1. 299 


us παραρῥυεὶς.. .. εἰς TO στόμα ἱδρὼς (Galen); in all which cases 
the word is applied to the flowing of liquids; to flow out, as εἴ τις 
ἀφροδίσιος λόγος magegéun (Ailian). In some cases the word is fig- 
urately applied to locomotion in men; as sagagévels γὰρ ἄνϑοωπος 
εἰς τὸν νεῶν [ναῦν] τοῦ ᾿“σκληπιοῦ (Plutarch). None of these in- 
stances justify the sense of perishing, falling into ruin. 

(6) The other sense contended for, is that of suffering to flow from 
the mind or memory, i. 6. to forget. That παραρῥυξεῖν is frequently ap- 
plied to things that glide or pass away from the mind, is well establish- 
ed. KE. g. “‘ Many who seem to be believers....need, for the sake of 
remembering... examples drawn from objects of sense... ἵνα μὴ) τέλεον 
maoaoour, so that they will not entirely escape, i. e. from the mind, Ori- 
gen contra Celsum, p. 393.” “That τὰ χαλᾶ may not be merely tem- 
porary, καὶ μὴ παραρόυὴ λήϑης βυϑοῖς ἀμαυρούμενα, and may not 
escape [flow away], being obscured in the abysses of forgetfulness, 
Greg. Nazianz.” So Lucian: εἶ re ἐν τῷ ποιήσεως δρόμῳ παραῤῥυὲν 
λάϑη, if any thing flowing away [escaping] tn the poetic course is 
forgotten, Diss. cum Hesiod. 5. So in Latin, “ frustra docemur, si 
quidquid audimus praeterfluat [παραρῥυεῖ], Quinctil. XI. 2.” “Tt 
cannot enter into the mind of the judge, ante enim praeterlabitur quam 
percepta est, for ἐξ glides away before it is apprehended, Cicero de Orat. 
IT. 25.” 

But in all these cases παραρῥυῶ is applied only to things, and not to 
persons. That a thing παραρῥυῆ, should escape from me, and that I 
should be said παραῤῥυεϊν in respect to that thing, are two very dif- 
ferent expressions; and consequently all the instances above, which 
have been adduced by learned critics, do not meet the difficulty of the 
case. Παραρῥυῶμεν is applied in our text to persons, not to things, 
as in the above quotations. 

In the classics, I have been able to find no example which is in point 
for our case. The Septuagint have used the word but once, Prov. 3: 
ΟἹ, υἱὲ, μὴ magadduys, τήρησον δὲ ἐμὴν βουλὴν καὶ ἔννοιαν, son, do 
not pass by [neglect], but keep my counsel and advice. 'This is the ve- 
ry proverb to which Chrysostom and Theophylact appeal, as an illus- 
tration of the word in question; but the true sense of this word, in 
Prov. 3: 21, they do not seem to have apprehended. 7)]αραῤρῥυῆς here 
plainly does not mean to perish, to fall, but it is the antithesis of 7707- 
σον, keep, attend to, practise, and consequently means to pass by, to 
neglect, to transgress. In like manner Clemens Alex., speaking of wo- 
men, says, “ They are bound by virtuous modesty, ἵνα μὴ παραῤῥυώῶσι 


900 neBReEws ILI. |. 


τῆς ἀληϑείας διὰ χαυνότητα, not to neglect [pass by or transgress| the 
truth on account of effeminate weakness, Pedagog. LI. p. 246.” These 
two instances seem to meet the wants of our case, as παραθῥυῶ is here 
applied to persons. 

The sense which our passage demands, is better made out by follow- 
ing these examples than in any other way. The writer of our epistle 
need not be understood as designing to say, in chap. 2:1, Take heed 
or you will perish; for he speaks of punishment immediately afterwards, 
in2:2. The explanation of Chrysostom then, and of the great number 
of critics who have followed him, seems not to be adequately supported by 
the nature of the context, nor by any classic example in point. The oth- 
er explanation, lest we should let them slip, lest we should not retain them, 
lest they should glide away, may be regarded as an approximation to 
the right meaning of the word. Plainly μὴ παραῤῥυώμεν, here applied 
to persons, may mean lest we should pass by, viz. the things which we 
have heard, lest we should neglect them, lest we should transgress [pass 
beyond] them; for so the writer himself seems to have explained it in 
the context. For if, says he, every παράβασις and παρακοή received 
a due reward [under the law of Moses], how shall we escape punishment, 
ἀμελήσαντες, having neglected so great salvation. That ἀμελή- 
oavres, here refers to the same thing which is designated by aagug- 
ὁυώμεν, appears on the whole to be probable; for first the writer ex- 
horts them ‘to attend diligently to what they had heard, lest they should 
pass by or neglect it ; and then he says, ‘if they do neglect it (ἀμελή- 
σαντες), punishment will be the certain consequence, a punishment 
more severe than that inflicted on transgressors under the law.’ So 
Calvin: Altendere et practerfluere sunt opposita... neque enim eorum 
opinionem probo, qui pro interire accipiunt [megagévaper|. Consid- 
eranda est antithesis inter refentionem et profusionem. 

The same sentiment is obtained, if we compare παραθῥυῶμεν with 
the preceding περισσοτέρως... προσέχειν. Now as προσέχειν means 
to attend diligently, to give heed, so magagévausy would seem to mean 
to treat with neglect, to be ἀμελήσαντες, as it is expressed in the follow- 
ing verse. In a word, the sentiment is, ‘ diligent attention to the truths 
of the gospel is necessary to guard us against neglect or transgression ; 
which neglect is followed by certain and aggravated condemnation.’ 
Kuinoel attributes to παραρῥυῶμεν the twofold sense of apostasy and 
destruction, p. 45. But is it not the fact, that the παράβασις and ἀμελή- 
σαντες οὖν. 2, are epexegetical of παραθῥυῶμεν 7 I acknowledge it is 
possible that πῶς ἐκφευξομεϑα may be the epexegesis of it; and in 


HEBREWS II, 2, 3. 301 


this case, παραρῥυῶμεν must ἐς ἃ ΠΝ sense which ἜΝ gives 
to it, viz. lest we perish. 

If an apology be due for dwelling so long on the verbal criticism of 
this word, it is, that the word has been so long contested, and so un- 
satisfactorily illustrated. 

(2) Ei yao ὁ Ov ἀγγέλων λαληϑεὶς λόγος, if the communication [rev- 
elation] made by angels. The Jewish law is undoubtedly the λύγος dv 
ἀγγέλων λαληϑείς, in this case. The meaning is, that angels were pres- 
ent and assisted at the giving of the law. See Excursus VIII. 

‘Eyévero βέβαιος, was ratified, was made firm and stable, i.e. its 
threatenings and promises were exactly fulfilled ; nothing which the law 
declared was null, or failed of being carried into execution. Compare 
Rom. 4: 16. Heb. 9: 17. 2 Pet. 1: 19. 

Kai πᾶσα παράβασις καὶ nagaxon, every transgression and act of 
disobedience. ‘Uhe words are nearly or quite synonymous by usage, 
both of them being employed in a secondary or derived sense. ITuga- 
βασις (from παραβαίνων) literally means going beyond, passing by any 
thing; but it is here applied to a moral action. So παραχοή comes 
from παραχούω, which means, (1) To hear in a careless or negligent 
manner. (2) To disobey, i.e. it is the opposite of ἀκούω to hear, or to 
obey. Παράβασις καὶ παρακοή, taken together, mean every kind of 
transgression, or every kind of offence against the law. 

βνδικον μεσϑαποδοσίαν, just retribution, or condign punishment. 
Miobunodooia designates the reward of retributive justice, i. e. punish- 
ment, as well as the reward for virtuous conduct; and this, in heathen 
as well as sacred writers. 

(3) Πὼς ἡμεῖς ἐχφευξόμεϑα, how shall he escape? viz. escape the 
μισϑαποδοσίαν reserved for transgressors; compare Heb. 12: 25. So 
Rom. 2: 3, éxpsvyecy τὸ κρίμα tov Θεοῦ. So Aesch. Eumen. v. 756, 
EXPEVYELY αἴματος δίκην. 

Τηλικαύτης σωτηρίας, i.e. the Christian religion ; for so the word 
σωτηρία sometimes signifies; comp. Jude v. 3, perhaps Rom. 11: 11 
and Heb. 6:9. The full phrase would seem to be ὁ λόγος τῆς σωτη- 
ρίας, which is found in Acts 13:26. It is, however, the Christian 
religion with all its promised blessings and tremendous threats, which 
is here designated by σωτηρία. How can we escape with impunity 
if we neglect (ἀμελήσαντες) them? ᾿““μελήσαντες here means more, 
however, than simple neglect ; it is plainly emphatic in this connection, 
and means to treat with utter disregard or contempt, such namely 
as would be implied in an apostasy. 


902 neBREws ITI. 3, 4. 


"Hrs ἀρχὴν λαβοῦσα λαλεῖσϑαι, equivalent to ἐν ἀρχὴ λαληϑεῖσα, 
which was αὐ first declared or published. The Greeks often use the 
phrase ἀρχὴν λαβών, to signify at first, or taking its rise, commencing 
its origin. Tov Κυρίου, viz. Christ. 

“Ὑπὸ τῶν ἀχουσάντων εἰς ἡμᾶς ἐβεβαιώϑη, was confirmed unto us 
by those who heard [him], i.e. the Lord, or by those who heard [it], i. 6. 
the gospel, σωτηρίαν. ᾿᾿βεβαιωϑὴ here means delivered or declared 
with confirmation to us, i.e. Christians. So Theophylact, διεπορϑμεύ- 
On εἰς ἡμᾶς βεβοίως καὶ πιστῶς, was propagated to us surely and 
faithfully. Because the writer here says εἰς τμᾶς, some critics, as we 
have seen, draw the conclusion that Paul could not have been the au- 
thor of this epistle, since he received the gospel immediately from Christ 
himself, Gal. 1: 12, and not from those who heard the Saviour declare 
it. But Cicero says, in one of his orations, Nos perdimus rempublicam. 
Shall we conclude that he did not write the oration, because he did 
not himself destroy the republic? See on ἡμᾶς, under v. 1, and see 
also Introduction, § 27. No. 17. 

(4) «Συνεπιμαρτυροῦντος τοῦ ϑεοῦ σημείοις τε καὶ τέρασι, God at- 
testing, being co-witness, viz. to the truth of what was preached, by 
various wonderful events. «Σημεῖον, as used often in the New Testa- 
ment and in the Septuagint, means any extraordinary sign or miracu- 
lous event, designed to shew the certainty that something which had 
been promised or predicted should take place, or that a prophet was 
what he professed to be. 7έρας, portentum, prodigium, miracle, has 
nearly the same meaning, and is very commonly joined with σημεῖον in 
the New Testament. Both connected mean various extraordinary 
events or prodigies, designed to confirm, establish, or render credible, 
any prediction or declaration of Christ, or of his messengers. Heathen 
writers sometimes employ both words in connection; e. g. Aelian, Var. 
Hist. XII. 57. The corresponding Hebrew phrase is, 0°57731 ΠῚ ΤΙΝ, 
signs and wonders, i.e. wonderful signs or proofs of any thing. Such 
the people of God often required, and such were often given. See Gen. 
15: 8—18. 24: 12—27. Judges 6: 17, 21, 36—40. 2 K. 19: 29. Is. 
38: 7,8. 7: 14—16, et alibi. Comp. Matt. 12: 38. 16: 1—3. 

Καὶ ποικίλαις δυνάμεσι, and various miraculous powers. Sometimes 
δύναμις is put for miracle, as Matt. 7:22. 11: 20, 21, 23, et alibi. 
But as σημείοις καὶ τέρασι denote miraculous events, in our verse, I 
understand δυνάμεσι as referring here to the miraculous powers which 
were imparted to the primitive teachers of the Christian religion. In 
such a sense the word is employed, in Mark 6: 14. Acts 6: 8. 10: 38. 


HEBREWs II. 4. 303 


The Septuagint do not employ this word to translate either Ὠ ἐξ or 
n'npi7, but always use σημεῖον and τέρατα. 

What follows is connected with the phrase just explained ; viz. καὶ 
πνεύματος ayiov μερισμοῖς, literally, and distributions of the Holy 
Spirit, i.e. the imparting of divine influence; which refers particularly 
to the various species of this influence which consisted in the power of 
working miracles; see 1 Cor. 12: 6—11. Compare also John 7: 39. 
Acts 1:5,8. 2:4, 17, 18, 33. 5:32. 8: 15, 19. 10: 44—47. 19: 
1—6. Ποικίλαις δυνάμεσι... «. καὶ μερισμοῖς, if considered as a 
Hendiadys (ἐν διὰ δυοῖν), may be thus rendered, various miraculous 
powers imparted by divine influence. 

Kara τὴν αὐτοῦ ϑέλησιν, as it seemed good in his [God’s] sight, i.e. 
as he pleased, or as the Holy Spirit pleased ; which last is favoured by 


1 Cor. 12: 6—I11, and to this I have conformed the pointing of my 
translation. 


The sum of the whole warning (vs. 1—4) is, ‘Beware that you do 
not slight the gospel, whose threatenings are more to be dreaded than 
those of the law; inasmuch as the gospel is a revelation of a higher 
nature, and has been confirmed by more striking and more abundant 
miracles wrought by divine power.’ 


The writer,after having thus stopped for a moment to warn his readers against the consequences 
of defection from Christianity, returns to his subject, viz. the comparison of Christ with the an- 
gels. Having established by appeals to the Old Testament (1: 5—14), the superiority of the 
former over the latter in several points of view, he now proceeds to shew that the new or Christian 
dispensation was not ordered or arranged (like the Mosaic one) by angels, but that the Son of 
Man, the Messiah, was, in his human nature, placed at the head of it. Now as the Jews, one and 
all, conceded that the dispensation of the Messiah would be of a higher order than that of Moses, 
proof that Jesus was the sole mediator or head of the new dispensation, and that angels were not 
employed as mediators or internuntii in it, would satisfy them that Jesus was superior to the 
angels; since the place which he holds in the new economy, is higher than that which they had 
under the old, because the new economy itself is of a higher nature than the old. At the same 
time, an objection which a Jew, weak in Christian faith and strong in his attachment to the Mo- 
saic institutions, would very naturally feel, is met and tacitly answered by the apostle in what 
follows. Tho unbelieving Jews doubtless urged upon those who professed attachment to Chris- 
tianity, the seeming absurdity of renouncing their subjection to a dispensation of which angels were 
the mediators, and of acknowledging a subjection to one of which tie professed head and mediator 
appeared in our nature. The history of the objections made by the unbelieving Jews, to the 
claims of Jesus as being the Son of God (John 10: 30—39 et alibi), shews how very repulsive it 
was to their feelings, that one to all appearance like a man, and consisting of flesh and blood in 
the same manner as themselves, should‘advance a claim to the exalted honours of a superior and 
divine nature. The sect of the Ebionites, which arose even in the apostolic age from professed 
Jewish Christians in Palestine, shews how prone the Jewish Christians were to fee! doubts and 
difficulties about the claims of Jesus to a nature higher than the human, and to which divine hon- 
ours were due. No wonder, then, that the apostle found it necessary to meet, in our epistle, those 
doubts and difficulties with regard to the superior nature of the Christian dispensation, which 


904 HEBREWS II. 5, 6. 


were urged upon the minds of Jewish converts by the unbelieving Jews who regarded Christ as ἃ 
mere man. We shall see, however, that the author disposes of this difficulty, so as to further the 
great purpose of his general argument. 

He concedes the fact entirely, that Jesus had a nature truly and properly human, v. 6—18. But 
instead of granting that this proves the new dispensation to be inferior to that of Moses, he pro- 
ceeds to adduce evidence from the Old Testament Scriptures, to shew that man, or the human na- 
ture in the person of the Messiah, should be made Lord of the universe. Consequently, in this 
nature Jesus the Messiah is superior to the angels. Of course, the possession by Jesus of a nature 
truly and properly human, does not at all prove either his inferiority, or the inferiority of the dis- 
pensation of which he is the head (v. 6—9); which meets an objection strongly urged upon the 
Hebrew Christians by their unbelieving brethren. 

Nay more; it was becoming that God should exalt Jesus, in consequence of his obedience unto 
death, a death necessary for the salvation of Jew and Gentile, v.9, 10. ΤῸ suffer this death, he 
must needs take on hima nature like ours; and, as his object was the salvation of men (and not of 
angelic beings), so he participated in the nature of men, in order that by experience he might 
know their sufferings, temptations, and trials, and thus be prepared, in a peculiar manner and in 
their own nature, to be compassionate, faithful, and ready to succour them, v, 11—18. 

The sum of the whole is, that the possession of a human nature by Jesus, is far from being a 
reason why the ancient dispensation (of which angels were the internwntii) is preferable to the 
new one; for (1) This very nature is exalted far above the angels. (2) Without participating in 
this nature, Jesus could not have made expiation for sin by his death. And (3) The possession 
of such a nature did contribute, in a peculiar and endearing manner, to constitute him such a 
Saviour as men could approach with the greatest boldness and confidence, in all their wants and all 
their woes. 


(5) Tao, however, Germ. doch. The reference is to v. 2, and the © 
clause contains what is distinguished from the assertion there. Ov γάρ 
is in its own nature adversative, and the relation here to something 
already mentioned, is indicated by the yee. I can think of no word 
that comes nearer to the force of the particle here, than however. 

Tv οἰκουμένην τὴν μέλλουσαν; equivalent to ὁ αἰῶν ὁ μέλλων, 1. 6. 
the Christian dispensation, the world as it will be in future, 0 μέλλων, 
i. 6. the world as under the reign of Christ. The addition of περὶ ἧς 
λαλοῦμεν, shews that such is the sense of the phrase; for it is Chris- 
tianity, to which he had just been urging the Hebrews to pay the 
strictest regard. 

(6) “Ζιεμαρτύρατο δὲ που tis, one in a certain place, 1. e. passage of 
Scripture, bears this testimony. The writer speaks to those who were 
supposed to be familiar with the Jewish Scriptures, and who needed 
only a reference to them, by quoting some of the words which any pas- 
sage contained. For a Hebrew to acknowledge the authority of his 
own Scriptures, might be expected as a matter of course. The pas- 
sage quoted here is Ps, 8: 4—6, exactly according to the version of the 
Seventy. 

Ti ἔστιν... αὐτοῦ ; what is man that thou shouldest kindly regard 
him? The secondary sense of μεμνήσκω is, to remember with affec- 
tion, to regard with kindness. So the Heb. 27; and so μεμνήσκεσϑε, 
in Heb. 13: 3. 


HeBREWs II. 6,7. 305 


ἊΜ υἱὸς... αὐτὸν, or the son of man, that thou shouldest regard him? 
The phrase υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου, is here equivalent to ἄνϑοωπος ; just as in 
Hebrew, D38 73 is equivalent to D5N. The subject is evidently the 
same as in the preceding clause, and υἱὸς ἀνϑρώπου is employed mere- 
ly for the sake of giving variety to the mode of expression. | Lieoxén- 
τομαι, to visit, usually means to inspect or look upon favourably, to 
watch over one for his good, to succour him, to assist him; see Matt. 
25 : 36. Luke 1: 68. James 1: 27. In the New Testament, it is used 
only in a sense which designates inspecting with an eye of favour. 
But in the Septuagint, it is also used for visiting in order to punish; 
as is the Hebrew 775, e. g. Ex. 32: 34. 34:7, et alibi. Our English 
word regard, (taken in a τῶνδε sense), answers well to ἐπεσχέπτομαίι. 
The classical use of the word sometimes, though rarely, accords with 
the sense in which it is here employed. 

(7) “Marrwoag αὐτὸν... ἀγγέλους, thou hast made him but Little 
inferior to the angels. TIaga here means in comparison with; as in 
1:4, παρ᾽ αὐτούς. βραχύ te may signify either a little time, or a Lit- 
tle in respect to degree or rank ; in which last case, it would be equiva- 
lent here to our English word somewhat. In the Septuagint it is em- 
ployed in both these senses; as is also the Hebrew word 0272, which is 
here rendered by βοαχύ ze. In Ps. 8:6, 0372 seems pretty παν to 
refer to inferiority of rank or station, and not to time. But in our text, 
most recent commentators have maintained that it refers to time; and 
consequently, that the apostle has merely accommodated the passage in 
Ps. vi. to an expression of his own views. But such a mode of inter- 
pretation is, at least, unnecessary here. The object which the writer 
of our epistle has in view, is not to prove how little time Christ appear- 
ed in our nature; but that, although he did possess a nature truly hu- 
man, still in this nature he was exalted above the angels. “Hiarrmoas 
αὐτὸν βυαχύ τι παρ᾽ ἀγγέλους, then, simply designates the condition 
of man, as being in itself but little inferior to that of the angels. Man 
is made in the image of God, Gen. 1: 26, 27. 9:6. It is plainly the 
dignity of man which the Psalmist intends to describe, when he says, 
ἘΜ peng ὩΣ πο ΠΩ. To such a view of his design, the context of 
this passage in Ps. virr. [6845 us. ‘I'he Psalmist looks abroad and sur- 
veys the heavens in all their splendour and glory, and then, with deep 
sensations of his own comparative insignificance, he exclaims, “‘ What 
is man that thou shouldest be mindful of him! Or the son of man, that 
thou shouldest regard him! Yet [1 but, yet] thou hast made him little 
inferior (ὩΣ mae) " the angels, thou hast crowned him etc.” 


306 HEBREWS II. 7. 


The nature of the case and the nature of poetic parallelism ee re- 
quire such an interpretation of the passage in the original Psalm; and 
the very same interpretation of it is altogether apposite to the purpose 
of the writer, in Heb. 2:7. What is his design? To prove that 
Christ, in his human nature, is exalted above the angels. How does 
he undertake to prove this? First, by shewing that this nature itself 
is made but little inferior to that of the angels, ἡλάττωσας αὐτὸν βραχύ 
τὸ παρ ἀγγέλους; and next, that it has been exalted to the empire of 
the world, “‘ Thou has crowned him with glory and honeur, and set 
him over the work of thy hands.” 

But suppose, now, that we should render βραχύ τι, for alittle while ; 
what object which the writer designs to accomplish, is accomplished by 
such an assertion? It would not contain ;any proof of the dignity of 
Christ in his human nature, but merely of temporary inferiority, i. e. 
inferiority during the time of his mearnation. Clearly it is not the 
present object of the writer to prove this. Much more to the purpose 
does he appear to reason, when we understand him as using βραχύ re 
in the same sense as 0272 is used by the Psalmist. The passage thus 
understood renders the vindication (attempted by many) of the Liber- 
ties, which the writer is alleged to have taken with Ps. 8: 6, quite un- 
necessary. 

Tlag ἀγγέλους, in the Hebrew D°7>N%2. On the subject of render- 
ing DDN, ἄγγελοι, seeon 1:6. If we insist that the uswal meaning 
of the Hebrew word Elohim should be retained, the argument would 
be still stronger to prove the dignity of the Messiah in his human na- 
ture. Thou hast made him but little inferior to Elohim, would repre- 
sent him at least as ἐσαγγέλος, if not above the angels. See Gen. 1: 
26, 27, from which the language here and in the sequel appears to be 
borrowed. 

But how could the apostle use mag’ ἀγγέλους, as conveying the sense 
of p27 In answer to this, we may say, (1) It conveys no mean- 
ing that is untrue, even if we insist that D728 in Ps. vi. must be un- 
derstood as meaning God. If man is but little below Elohim surely 
he is not much inferior to the angels. (2) As angels are here compar- 
ed by the writer with man, or rather, the angelic with the human na- 
ture in the person of the Saviour, the passage, as it stands in the Sep- 
tuagint and as the apostle has quoted it, is apposite to his purpose ; al- 
though it claims, in fact, /ess for the argument, than would be claimed 
by insisting that the word D°7j>" should be interpreted God. As the 
writer was addressing those who used the Septuagint version of the 


neBReEws II. 7, 8. 307 


Scriptures, nothing could be more natural than to quote that version as 
it stood, unless it conveyed an idea that was essentially erroneous. 
This is just what we’ do, every day, with our English version of the 
Scriptures, without suspecting that we are violating any rule of pro- 
priety. 

Like to the Seventy, the Chaldee has rendered D°4>N72 by ΝΞ ΞΘ, 
i.e. nag’ ἀγγέλους. With this rendering Aben Ezra agrees; as ἐδ 
Mendelsohn, Michaelis, Dathe, and others; and Gesenius, in his re- 
cent Thesaurus, acknowledges that the word is susceptible of such a 
meaning. Still the apostle, by using the version of the Seventy (παρ᾽ 
ἀγγέλους), has, as I have already said, assumed less in the argument 
than the original would have given him, supposing 0°75 iN) to mean God. 
At the same time he has taken a version, which in its present shape 
is exactly apposite to his purpose, i. e. to shew that if a comparison of 
Christ with the angels be made, it will be seen, that even during his 
humiliation he was but little inferior to them; while in a state of exal- 
tation in the human nature, he is far above them. 

Aoknxoat τιμὴ ἐστεφάνωσας αὐτόν, thou hast crowned him with 
glory and honour, or with exalted honour. Ao&n καὶ τιμῇ are nearly 
equivalent or synonymous ; and two synonymous nouns, thus construct- 
ed, are expressive of intensity, agreeably to the well known usage of 
the Hebrew language from which this idiom is borrowed. In the orig- 
inal, ASM WIAD 251, which is very literally rendered in the 
Greek. 

But what is the exalted honour conferred upon the human nature of 
Jesus? Kai κατέστησας αὐτὸν ἐπὶ τὰ ἔργα τῶν χειρῶν σου, thou hast 
set him over the works of thy hands, i.e.thou hast given him dominion over 
the creation. "Heya τῶν χειρῶν cov means simply, the works which 
thou hast made, i. e. thy works. The form of expression is borrowed 
from the mode of human operations, in which hands are the most con- 
spicuous instrument. Aediornjut, sisto, colloco, statuo. It should be 
noted, however, that this clause is omitted in some Codices of good au- 
thority; such as B. D. and several others. 

(8) Πάντα... ποδῶν αὐτοῦ, thou hast subjected all things to him, 
i. 6. given him universal dominion. The phrase to put under one’s feet, 
denotes, to put in a state of complete or entire subjection. See Excur- 
sus IX. 

The writer proceeds to comment on the quotation just made. “Zy 
γὰρ τῷ ὑποτάξαν αὐτῷ τὰ πᾶντα, οὐδὲν ἀφῆχεν αὐτῷ ἀνυπόταχτον, 


908 HEBREWS 11,8, 9. 


i. 6. the expression is one of universality, it makes no exception but on- 
ly of God himself; comp. 1 Cor. 15 : 27. 

Nov δὲ οὔπω ὁρῶμεν αὐτῷ τὰ πάντα ὑποτεταγμένα, for the present, 
indeed, we do not see all things yet subjected to him. ᾿ Ὑποτεταγμένα, 
subject to his ordering, arrangement, or disposal. In other words, * This 
prophecy of the Psalmist is not, as yet, wholly fulfilled; but so much of 
it has been accomplished, that we may regard it as a pledge, that a ful- 
filment of the rest will certainly follow.’ So the sequel. 

(9) Tov δὲ βοαχύ te... γεύσηται ϑανάτου, but we see Jesus, who 
was a little inferior to the angels, on account of the suffering of death 
crowned with glory and honour, after that by the grace of God he had 
tasted of death for all, i. 6. for Jew and Gentile. So, on the whole, I 
must explain this much controverted and somewhat difficult passage. 
Two objections against the superiority of Christ over angels, were very 
naturally urged by the unbelieving Jews upon the believing ones. (1) 
Christ was a man. (2) He suffered an ignominious death. To these 
the apostle replies in the quotation which precedes v. 9, and on which 
he is now commenting. In doing this he suggests the consideration, 
that the death of Jesus, so far from proving his condition to be inferior 
to that of the angels, was immediately connected with his exaltation to 
glory, and with the salvation of the world. 

That the passage is replete with difficulty (principally on account of 
the arrangement), is plain from the constructions put upon it, which 
have been varied in every possible way, by different commentators. 
E. g. (1) Beza: We see crowned with glory and honour~Jesus, who 
was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, that 
by the grace of God he might taste of death for every man. (2) Valc- 
kenaer: We see Jesus a little while made lower than the angels, through 
the suffering of death crowned with glory and honour, that by the grace 
etc. (3) Pierce, Michaelis, Dindorf, Wakefield, and others: Jesus, 
who was made lower than the angels in order that he might sufler death, 
that by the grace of God he might taste of death for every man, we see 
crowned with honour and glory. (4) Carpzoff, Boehme, and Cramer, 
include in a parenthesis διὰ τὸ πάϑημα... ἐστεφανωμένον, and join 
ὅπως yagete x. τ. A. to the first part of the verse. (5) Haenlein, Mo- 
rus, Kuinoel: We see Jesus etc, on account of the suffering of death 
crowned with glory and honour, that it might be made apparent that 
his death, through divine benevolence, was destined for the salvation of 
all. 

If I were to choose either of these, I should prefer the exegesis of 


HEBREWs II. 9. 809 


Carpzoff, Cramer, etc., as on the whole the most natural and easy. 
But all of them seem to me to be more or less forced explanations. 
Plainly it is not the apostle’s principal object, to shew that Jesus had a . 
nature in which he might suffer death; but to shew that his death, so \ 
far from degrading him, was a ground of his supreme exaltation and of 
the salvation of the human race; and so, the fact that he was human, | 
and that he died, would afford no just ground for ranking him, in his 
present condition, beneath the angels. His humble condition and suf- 
ferings are most intimately connected with his supreme elevation. And 
he who keeps this in mind, will need no other aid in deciding upon 
Nos. 1—3 above. No. 4 is certainly a possible explanation, perhaps 
not an improbable one ; but there is also the like objection to this which/ 
has just been made, viz. that it does not appear to be the object of the 
writer to assert that Jesus took on him the human nature in order that 
he might suffer. Yet it may also with justice be said in favour of this 
exegesis, that the idea of taking on him a nature lower than that of the 
angels, in order that by divine mercy he might die for a perishing 
world, was worthy of the supreme dignity and excellence of Jesus, and 
could in no way be construed as rendering him inferior to the angels. 

The idea which Kuinoel and others educe from ὅπως χάριτι κ. τ. 1., 
does not appear to lie in the text; for how was it, that Jesus was crown- 
ed with glory and honour, in order that he might suffer death for all? 
He had already suffered death, before he was so crowned. If the wri- 
ter had said: In order that he might save, deliver, or redeem all, then 
we might adopt this exegesis; for redemption would be subsequent to 
the glorification of the Saviour. But how Jesus was exalted in erder 
that he might taste death for ali, I think these interpreters (with whom 
Bloomfield agrees) have not sufficiently explained. 

I must on the whole, adopt a different method of explanation, and 
one which renders no metathesis of the text necessary, and (as I trust) 
does no violence to the usus loguendi. The first part of the verse has 
already beenexplained. The second clause I construe thus: δόξῃ καὶ τι- 
un... Oavecov, crowned with the highest honour on account of his su‘ 
fering death. See the same sentiment in Phil. 2: 8—11. Heb. 12: 2. 
Comp. John 17: 4,5. Heb. 5: 7—9. Eph. 1 : 20—23. Rev. 3: 21. That 
I have rightly construed this phrase, moreover, appears from the latter part 
of v. 10, dca παϑημάτων τελειῶσαι, to advance to glory through suffer- 
ings. The Acc. with διά in v. 9, shews that the interpretation I have 
given is grammatical. That it is analogical with other parts of Scrip- 
ture,the texts referred to will sufficiently evince. 


310 HeBrews II. 9. 


“Ὅπως is rendered by almost all the critics and lexicographers, ué, 
eum in finem ut, that, so that, in order that, etc.; just as if the word 
had, or could have no other meaning. That ὅπως generally means 
that, so that, in order that, etc., particularly that it has this mean- 
ing in most instances where it occurs in the New Testament, there 
can be no reasonable doubt. But ὅπως also means, as an adverb, 
cum, quando, postquam, when, after, after that. So it means in 
Acts 3:19, although Wahl has overlooked the passage. So also 
in Aristoph. Nub. 60. Soph. Oedip. Col. 1638. Homer. Il. XII. 
208. Odys. II. 373. XXIL. 22. Eurip. Phoenis. 1155. 1404. He- 
rod. I. 17. VII. 119; see Passow’s Lex. ὅπως, A. 2.6. This sense 
also Hoogeveen, Zeunius, Ernesti, Schleusner, Schneider, and Donne- 
gan, assign to it. “Ὅπως is construed more usually with the future 
Ind., or with the Subj. Ist or 2d Aorist, in case these tenses are found 
in any verb. In the instance before us it is followed by γεύσηται, in 
the Subj. first Aorist of the middle voice. It may then be rendered by 
the past time, (as I have translated it); just as in the cases where the 
formula ὅπως πληρωϑὴ occurs, it is often rendered, or should be ren- 
dered, so that there was an accomplishment. See Wahl on ὅπως, 2. 6. 
The only difference in the latter case is, that the voice is passive ; 
which however does not affect the question about the mode of render- 
ing the tense. It will be noted, that the particle ὅπως demands the 
Subj. mood after it, when employed in the sense of postguam; see 
Passow, ubi supra. But this does not require a future sense of the 
verb itself, I mean future in respect to the time when the author wrote ; 
but it demands merely a conditional sense in regard to the event con- 
nected with it. E. g. in this case, the tasting of death was the condi- 
tion, on which the glory and honour were to be conferred. 

The only objection which I can see to the exegesis now proposed 
is, that there may seem to be a repetition of the same sentiment by the 
apostle in immediate succession ; for first he says, διὰ πάϑημα τοῦ 
ϑανάτου %. τ. 4, and then ὅπως... yevontae Saratov. To this I 
answer, that the other modes of construing the verse do not in general 
avoid the same appearance ; and some of them expressly recognize the 
latter of the two expressions above as epexegetical of the former. Then, 
moreover, in the mode of explanation which I have adopted, there is 
merely an apparent, not a real repetition. The one expression states 
that the death of Jesus was one of the grounds of his advancement to 
glory: the other, that he ¢asted of death in order that the whole human 
race might be brought into a state of salvation. Here then are two 


HEBREWS II. 9. . 81 


distinct reasons why the death of Jesus was not derogatory to him, and 
therefore could not be appealed to as shewing that he was not exalted 
above the angels. ‘The explanation which I give of the words, repre- 
presents the sentiment to be the following, viz. ‘When Jesus, by the 
benevolent purpose of God towards men, had tasted of death for them, 
he was crowned with glory and honour on account of his high and holy 
act of obedience.’ By the suggestion of such views respecting the 
death of Christ, it is plain that the writer removes the objections which 
he is tacitly labouring to remove ; and therefore it seems consonant 
with the nature of the case to represent him as thus speaking. 

If, however, the reader is not satisfied with this explanation of ὅπως 
z. τ. 4, I should commend to him that of Cramer, etc., as given under 
No. 4 above, which puts in a parenthesis the words διὰ τὸ παϑημα... 
ἐστεφανωμένον, and joins ὅπως x. τ. A, to the first part of the verse. 
I cannot help thinking, that the exegesis of Kuinoel and others is 
strained and unnatural. The sentiment, indeed, is correct; but how 
to obtain it from the words in question—I donot know. ‘The interpreta- 
tion of Cramer, however, viz. that Jesus took on him our nature in or- 
der that he might suffer death for all, is not itself an improbable one, 
and it may be received ; although, as I have said, I do not think it is 
the apostle’s main design here to assert this. 

Xaovte ϑεοῦ means, by the goodness, kindness, mercy of God. Ὑπὲρ 
παντὸς means, all men without distinction, i. e. both Jew and Gentile. 
The same view is often given of the death of Christ; see John 3: 14 
—17. 4:42. 12:32. 1 John 2:2. 4:14. 1 Tim. 2:3, 4. Tit. 2:11. 
2 Pet. 3: 7. Comp. Rom. 8: 29, 30. 10: 11—13. In all these and the 
like cases, the words all and ail men, evidently mean Jew and Gentile. 
They are opposed to the Jewish idea, that the Messiah was connected 
appropriately and exclusively with the Jews, and that the blessings of 
his kingdom were appropriately if not exclusively theirs. The sacred 
writers mean to declare, by such expressions, that Christ died, really 
and truly, as well and as much for the Gentiles as for the Jews; that 
there is no difference at all in regard to the privileges of any one who 
may belong to his kingdom; and that all men, without exception, have 
equal and free access to it. But the considerate interpreter, who un- 
derstands the nature of this idiom, will never think of seeking, in ex- 
pressions of this kind, proof of the final salvation of every individual of 
the human race. Nor do they, when strictly scanned by the wsus lo- 
quendi of the New Testament, decide directly against the views of those 
who advocate what is called a particular redemption. In all these 


912 HEBREWS II. 9, 10. 


phrases, the subject evidently respects the offer of salvation, the oppor- 
tunity to acquire it through a Redeemer; not the actual application of 
promises, the fulfilment of which is connected only with repentance and 
faith. But whether such an offer can be made with sincerity to those 
who are reprobates, (and who, the Saviour knows, are and will be 
such), consistently with the grounds which the advocates for particular 
redemption maintain, is a question for the theologian rather than the 
commentator to discuss. 

7εύσηται θανάτου, taste of death, i. 6. experience death, suffer it. 
So the Hebrew writers use the word O20 for experience; and classic 
Greek authors, the word γεύομαιν in the same sense. E. g. Ps. 34:9. 
Sibyll. Orac. I. p. 164, 4deu γευσάμενος ϑανάτου. Eunapius de 
Porphyrio: ‘ Porphyry praised the spell of purity, καὶ διὰ πείρας yev- 
σάμενος, and first tried [tasted] it himself.” Philo (de vita Mosis p. 
682), 7) διάνοια tay γευσαμένων ὁσιότητος, the mind of those who 
have experienced [tasted] holiness. 

(10) ἔπρεπε yao αὐτῷ Ov ὃν τὰ πάντα καὶ dv οὗ τὰ πάντα, for it 
became him, for whom all things [were made], and by whom all things 
[were made]; i.e. it became the supreme Lord and Creator of all 
things. ~ The writer leaves his readers to feel and acknowledge the 
truth of this assertion, without stopping to offer proof of its correctness. 
The force of the appeal seems to lie in the tacit acknowledgment of all, 
that reward is properly consequent upon trial and approbation, and is 
not to be bestowed without them. Now as Christ possessed a nature 
truly human; and as all men are, by the universal arrangement of a 
wise and overruling providence, subjected to trial; so it was proper or 
becoming in God, that Jesus should be subjected to trial in our nature, 
before he was advanced to glory in it. 

“Πολλοὺς υἱοὺς ἀγαγόντα x. τι. This part of the verse contains an 
involved construction of the words, in respect to their order. The ar- 
rangement of the sense is generally taken to be as follows; “gene 
yao avin... διὰ παϑημάτων τελειῶσαι TOY ἀρχηγὸν τῆς σωτηρίας 
αὐτῶν, ἀγαγόντα πολλοὺς υἱοὺς εἰς δόξαν. But Kuinoel and some 
others connect ἀγαγόντα with the preceding αὐτῷ, and apply it there- 
fore to God the Father. ‘The regular laws of grammatical construction 
would require «yayovre (Dat. case so as to agree with αὐτῷ); but still 
this is not an indispensable rule. The anacolutha of the participle in 
particular are well known (see Winer’s Gramm. ᾧ 64. 2, edit. 3), i.e. the 
participle not unfrequently differs in case from the noun or pronoun to 
which it belongs; e.g. Eph. 4: 2, ὑμᾶς... ἀνεχόμενοι. Col. 3: 16, 


HEBREWS II. 10. 313 


con Na ignut ~ - 

ὑμῖν οςςς διδάσκοντες. 2 Cor. 9: 10, 11, ὑψιών..... πλουτιζόμενοι. 
~ ? Ul ΄ 

Acts 15:22, τοῖς ἀποστολοις.... γράψαντες. Comp. also Rom. 2: 


8.8: 3. 2 Cor. 12:17. Eph. 3:17. Such anacolutha are by no means 
uncommon in the best Greek authors; e.g. Thucyd. 3: 36, ἐδοξεν 
αὐτοῖς ἐπικαλοῦντες" 4: 42, τοῖς Συρακουσίοις... ὁρῶντες" 1: 93, 
τοῖς ᾿“ϑηναίοις..... καταβάντες" 6: 24, τοῖς ἐν ἡλικίᾳ... εὐέλπι- 
δὲς" Hom. Iliad. 11. 350, Δ ονίωνα ... ἀστράπτων. See Kuinoel on 
Acts 15: 22, and Winer ut supra. We may then (so Kuinoel asserts) 
refer ἀγαγόντα to the preceding αὐτῷ, without departing from the wsus 
loquendi ; and on the whole, with him I should prefer this construction, 
if the Part. ἀγαγόντα were in the Nom. case; for such is the fact with 
all the anacolutha produced above, and it seems to be essential to the 
irregular construction itself, that the participle should be in the Nom. 
case. But Kuinoel has overlooked this nicety, and consequently has 
adopted what seems to be an erroneous construction. 

It became him τελειῶσαι τὸν ἀρχηγόν. The word τέλειος means 
full grown, of mature age, either literally, or figuratively. In the latter 
sense it is employed in 1 Cor. 2: 6, however, we speak the doctrines of 
wisdom ἐν τοῖς τελείοις. So Heb. 5: 14, comprehending as it were 
both the above senses, where it is opposed to νήπιος. See also 1 Cor. 
14: 20. Eph. 4: 3, et alibi. 7ξλειος also means, mature in a moral 
sense, i.e. integer, just, free from vices, perfect. It is also very na- 
turally used in a secondary sense, to denote a consummation or maturity 
of our nature and happiness in a better world, e.g. 1 Cor. 19: 10. 
Hence the verb zélecow, formed from the adjective τέλειος, is often 
used to designate exaltation to a state of reward or happiness in a fu- 
ture world. Among the Greeks, this verb was employed to designate 
the condition of those, who, having run in the stadium and proved to be 
victorious in the contest, were proclaimed as successful ἀγωνεέσταί, and 
had the honours and rewards of victory bestowed upon them. So τέλος 
is used by the Greeks for reward, i.e. consummation; see Schleusner 
on τελεέόω. Such persons were τετελεέεωμένοι. In a sense like this 
is téeL0w usually employed, with reference to Jesus, throughout the 
epistle to the Hebrews; e.g.5:9, τελεεωϑείς, being advanced to a 
state of glory; 7:28, τετελειωμένον, id. The same sense the word 
has in the verse under examination. In v. 9 the writer had said, that 
on account of the suffering of death Jesus was δόξη καὶ τιμὴ ἐστεφανω- 
μένον. Here he says, διὰ παϑημάτων τελειῶσαι, through sufferings to 
exalt to glory, or to bestow the highest honours. As the writer evidently 
says this in commenting on the preceding expression, it is plain that 


40 


914 nEBREWS II. 10,1]. 


διὰ παϑημάτων τελειῶσαι is merely an equivalent for διὰ τὸ πάϑημα 
τοῦ ϑανάτου δόξη καὶ τιμῇ ἐστεφανωμένον. So Theophylact: “ze- 
λείωσις here means δόξαν ἣν ἐδοξασϑη." 

Tov ἀρχηγὸν σωτηρίας αὐτῶν, auctor salutis, the author of salva- 
lion; so it is usually interpreted. So satel ght αἴτιος, ὁ τὴν σωτη- 
olay rexov. The phrase ἀρχηγὸν σωτηρίας αὐτῶν may mean here 
the same as ἀρχηγὸν καὶ σωτῆρα in Acts 5: 31, i.e. their Prince and 
Saviour. But in Acts 3:15, ἀρχηγὸν τῆς ζωῆς is applied to Jesus ; 
and in Heb. 12:2 we have ἀρχηγὸν τῆς πίστεως ; which would rather 
favour the first interpretation. The sense, however, seems to be sub- 
stantially expressed if we render thus, viz. on account of sufferings to 
exalt to a state of glory their Prince and Saviour. Thus understood, 
the passage contains admirable matter of exhortation to the Hebrew 
Christians, to persevere in their adherence to Christianity amid all their 
trials and sufferings; for Jesus their Prince and Saviour himself suf 
fered, and was exalted to glory by his sufferings. If Jesus himself, 
then, exalted as he was, endured suffering, how could they expect to be 
exempt from it? Yet if they persevered in their adherence to him, 
like him they would be zezedscopevoe. 

(11) ὍΟ,τε yao aytatwy .... πάντες. I find in the γάρ here an 
intimation of a second illustration or confirmation of the sentiment in v. 
5; for here is proof subjoined, that Christ had a human, not an angelic 
nature. Then after this, as in the case above, the writer turns this 
very humanity of Christ to the advantage of his subject and of his gen- 
eral design, instead of leaving the matter in the hands of an objector ; 
see in vs. 14,15. The word ἀγεαάζω seems not to have been well un- 
derstood here by most commentators, and a particular investigation is 
required in order to explain the sense in which it is used in our epistle. 
‘Aya corresponds to the Hebrew ὑπ, WPI, which often means, 
to consecrate to God as an offering ; e.g. Lev. 22: 2,72 Dow7pN, Sept. 
ἁγιάζυυσὶ μοι; 22:3, WP, Sept. ἀγιάξζωσε; Ex. 18 : 2, "> wap, 
Sept. ayiaooy μοι, et alibi. The verb ὉΠ also means, by a natural 
association of ideas, to expiate, to make atonement for; e.g. Job 1: 5, 
ὉΠ, he made atonement for them, where however the Sept. has éxa- 
Sagiber αὐτούς; so Ex. 19: 10, 14 and Josh. 7: 13, according to Ge- 
senius, where the Sept. has ἅγνεσον, ἡγίασε, and ayiaoov; comp. also 
Ezek. 44: 19. The verb ἀγεάξω also corresponds in the Septuagint to 
the Hebrew 422, which is the appropriate word to designate the making 
of an atonement, to expiate; e.g. Ex. 29: 33, they shall eat those things 
D2 AED AWN, with which expiation was made, Sept. ἐν οἷς ἡγιάσθησαν 


HEeBREWws II, 1]. 315 


a 


ἐν αὐτοῖς; Ex. 29: 36, and thou shalt purify the altar aby 7223, 
when thou makest an expiatory sacrifice upon it, Sept. ἐν τῷ ayeaceer 
σὲ ἐπ᾿ αὐτῷ. From the usus loguendi of the Hebrew and the Sept., 
then, it is plain that ἀγεάζω may mean to make exptation, to atone. 

Our epistle presents some plain instances of the use of ἀγεάζω in this 
sense. E.g. 10: 10, according to which will ἡγεασμένοι ἐσμεν, we are 
atoned for, i. e. expiation is made for us. How? The writer immedi- 
ately subjoins, διὰ τῆς προσφορᾶς τοῦ σώματος /joou Χριστοῦ ἐφά- 
παξ΄ which necessarily refers ἡγιασμένοι to the propitiatory offering 
of Christ; and consequently it has the sense which I have given to it. 
Comp. also 10: 14,29. So 13: 11, 12, “For the bodies of those ani- 
mals, whose blood was carried into the sanctuary by the high priest as 
a sin offering, were burned without the camp; wherefore Jesus, ἵνα 
ἀγεάσῃ the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate ;” 
where ἀγεάσῃ plainly means to make expiation for, to atone for. Both 
of these passages compare well with that under consideration; and all 
three predicate aycaonos of the sufferings and death of Christ; for in 
our context, in the very next preceding clause, the writer has spoken of 
Christ as retvehecwmévoy διὰ παϑημάτων; and he had just declared, 
that “ Jesus by the grace of God had tasted of death for all men.” Comp. 
also v. 17. We may then render ὅ,τε ἀγεάζων καὶ οἱ ἀγιαξόμενοι, both 
he who makes expiation for sin, and they for whom expiation is made, 
ἘΠῚΡ 2D WR. The usus loquendi of the epistle seems not merely to 
justify, but to demand, this interpretation. So also Ernesti, Kuinoel, 
Bloomfield, and others. 

‘LE ἑνὸς navres, i. 6. all have God for their common father. So most 
commentators; and perhaps rightly, for the phrase many sons (in v. 10) 
has reference to God as their Father, and the present verse seems to al- 
lude to this fact. Some say, ‘have Adam for their father ;’ others, ‘ Abra- 
ham.’ But ἐξ évog may mean that Christ, and those for whom he 
atoned by his sufferings, were ἐξ ἑνὸς yevous, i. e. possessed in com- 
mon of the same nature, see v. 14. The reasoning of the writer, un- 
derstood in this way, or as was first stated, is altogether apposite. It 
seems to be this; ‘That Christ had a nature truly human, is no ob- 
jection to regarding him as a Saviour exalted above the angels, and al- 
together adapted to the wants and woes of the human race. In the hu- 
man nature he suffered, and was advanced to glory; in it he made 
atonement for men; in it he sustains a most endearing relation to those 
for whom he made expiation, for he sympathizes with them vs. 17, 18. 


510 neBreEws II. 11, 12. 


and they are united to him as brethren having one common nature, or 
being of one common father, ἐξ ἑνὸς πάντες x. τ. 2, vs. LL—13. 

A ἣν aitioy.... καλεῖν, on account of which, i. e. because he 
possesses the same nature in common with them, he disdains not to call 
them his brethren. Οὐκ ἐπαισχύνεται, Chrysostom says, is used with 
regard to a person of higher rank, who condescends to associate with 
those of a lower standing. But if Christ were merely a man, and noth- 
ing more, where (we may ask with Abresch) would be either the great 
condescension or particular kindness manifested in calling men his 
brethren? If however he possessed a higher nature, if ἐκένωσε ἑαυτὸν, 
μορφὴν δούλου λαβών, Phil.2; 7; if ἐταπείνωσε ἑαυτόν, Phil. 2:8; 
then was it an act of peculiar kindness and condescension in him, to 
call men his breéhren. It is this high privilege to which men have at- 
tained, that the apostle is endeavouring to establish and illustrate ; and 
all this affords additional reason not to think diminutively of Jesus, as 
possessing a human nature. 

Having introduced the proposition, that ‘ Christ, possessing a nature 
truly human, regards men as his brethren,’ the writer appeals, as is 
usual with him, to the Old Testament, in confirmation of this senti- 
ment, and to shew the Hebrews that it is no new doctrine respecting 
the Messiah which he inculcates. 

(12) «“έγων, saying, i. 6. since he (Christ) says; ἀπαγγελῶ x. τ. A. 
The passage is quoted from Ps, 22: 23 [21 : 22], where, for the He- 
brew 750N, the Seventy have διηγήσομαι; instead of which our 
text employs its equivalent or synonyme, ἀπαγγελῶ. Such departures 
from the Septuagint are very common in the New Testament quotations. 

That the 22d Psalm relates to the Messiah, the Jews themselves con- 
fess, (see Dindorf in loc.) ; and the history of his death seems, indeed, 
to be a kind of practical commentary upon it. I can find nothing in 
the Psalm which forbids the application of it to the Messiah; although 
I can find enough to satisfy me that it is quite inapplicable to David. 
The general conversion of the nations to God (vs. 28—32) accords well 
with the gospel dispensation, but not with the Jewish, which from its 
very nature could not be a wniversal religion ; for how could all nations, 
from the extremities of the earth, ever go up three times in a year to 
Jerusalem, in order to worship and to offer sacrifice there? And can it 
be rationally supposed, that David uttered such words as those to which 
I have just adverted, in reference merely to Judaism? The whole ob- 
ject of the present quotation is merely to shew, that Christ is exhibited 


neBrews IT. 12, 13. τον 


in the Jewish Scriptures as having ere men in Ὁ" erate δῇ 
brethren, ἀδελφούς. 

‘Ev μέσῳ ἐκκλησίας ὑμνήσω σὲ, among the assembly I will praise 
thee, q. ἃ. in or among the assembly of my brethren, i. 6. of men, will I 
celebrate thy praise. In the Hebrew, the words *7 iN> and tmp ἼΊΩΞ, 
correspond to each other, and are equivalent to each other. The first 
part of the apostle’s quotation, is most directly to the point which he is 
labouring to illustrate and confirm; the second part (as in many like 
cases) appears to be cited principally because of the intimate connec- 
tion which exists between it and the preceding parallelism, and because 
the memory of those whom he addressed would be assisted by a quota- 
tion at large of the whole verse. Still, im the second part the zmplica- 
tion is, that he who ‘sings praise in the midst of the assembly,’ must be 
like them and one of their number. 

(13) Kai πάλεν, and again [he says], ἐγὼ ἔσομαι πεποιϑος ἐπ᾽ 
αὐτῷ, I confide in him, or Τὸ will confide in him. But whence is this 
quoted? In Ps. 18:3, the Hebrew has 12 ON, which the Seventy 
render ἐλπεῶ αὐτῷ; in Sam. 22:3, the same “Hebrew words occur, 
which they render according to the phraseology of our text, πεπουϑως 
ἔσομαι ἐπ᾿ αὐτῷ. Some critics have defended the opinion, that the 
quotation of the apostle is from one of these passages. But as it 15 
plain, not only that the Messiah is not described or alluded to in these 
passages, but also that the Jews have never been accustomed to inter- 
pret them as referring to him; 80 there is surely no need of defend- 
ing this position, if another passage as apposite as these can be found, 
which is less exceptionable in regard to its application. Critics are 
pretty generally ‘agreed, therefore, that Is. 8: 17 is quoted, the He- 
brew of which is 35 77°2p1, the Septuagint version of which is the 
same as our quotation. This, considered in connection with the quota- 
tion immediately following, (which is taken from Is. 8: 18), renders it 
altogether probable that the writer had this place of Scripture in his 
mind, rather than either of the others, when he made the quotations in 
question. The Hebrew 1> 777227 may be rendered, J wiil wait for 
him, or I will trust him. The latter is adopted by tlic Septuagint, and 
by the apostle. The argument in this case appears to be this. ‘It is 
men, who exercise trust or confidence in God. This is predicated of 
them as dependent, and possessing a feeble nature. ‘The same thing is 
predicated of the Messiah ; and consequently he possesses a nature like 
theirs, and therefore they are his brethren ; ἐξ ἑνὸς πάντες,; 

Kai nade’ ἰδοὺ κ. τ. 4, has been adduced as an argument, that the 


918 HEBREWS II. 13, 14. 


passage quoted here must be from a different part of Scripture, and not 
from the same paragraph with that of the quotation immediately preced- 
ing. But this does not follow ; for in this same epistle, 10: 30, a quota- 
tion is made from Deut. 382: 25, and another from 32: 36, with zai 
πάλεν between them as here. In sucha case zai wader is to be render- 
ed and further, or and moreover. In regard to the design of the writer 
here, in making the citation, one may say that there are two intima- 
tions in it of like condition and nature, on the part of the speaker and 
those to whom he alludes. (1) He and they are in like condition; for 
both are ‘‘ signs and wonders” to the people of Israel. (2) The chil- 
dren given to him by God,” shew that the like relation of dependence 
may be predicated of both; and consequently, that the children in this 
case are of the like nature with the father. The main point is, that 
both depend on God; and so both being his children, they stand in 
such a relation that he [the Saviour] can call them brethren. See Ex- 
cursus X. for further illustration. 

(14) Λεκοινώνηκε σαρκὸς καὶ αἵματος, participated in flesh and 
blood, i. e. possessed a nature human, a body made up of flesh and 
blood. See 1 Cor. 15:50. Eph. 6: 12; and comp. Matt. 16: 17. Gal. 
1:16. Sirach. 14:18. The children (παιδία) here mentioned, are 
the same that are described in the preceding verse, viz. the disciples, 
the spiritual children of the Messiah. 

Καὶ αὐτὸς παραπλησίως μετέσχε τῶν αὐτῶν. Here μετέσχε is a 
synonyme of κεκοινώνηκε, participated in. ἹἸΙαραπλησίως is equiva- 
lent to ὁμοίως, in the same manner, as well as. ‘The Docetae exchang- 
ed παραπλησίως here for ὁμοίως, and then construed ὁμοίως as indi- 
cating only an appearance similar to flesh and blood ; in opposition to 
whom the Christian fathers maintained, that παραπλησίως signified ov 
δοκητῶς ἀλλ᾽ ἀληϑινῶς, ov φανταστικῶς add ὄντως. 

Τῶν αὐτῶν, i. 6. σαρκὸς καὶ αἵματος. The meaning is, that Christ 
had a natural body, truly corporeal and mortal. With this he was en- 
dowed, in order that he might suffer death in it, and by that death van- 
quish the spiritual enemy of mankind, the great adversary of souls. 

“Ive διὰ θανάτου... τὸν διάβολον, that by his death he might sub- 
due him who has a deadly power, that is, the devil. Katagyéw is scarce- 
ly used by the Greek writers, and when it is employed, it has the sense 
of delaying, rendering inactive, hindering, i. q. ἐμποδίζειν, which is 
used to explain it by the Scholiast on Eurip. Phoeniss. 760. In this 
sense it is often used in the Apocrypha. In the New Testament, the 
use of the word is not unfrequent; but with some latitude of significa- 


HEBREWS II. 14, 15. 319 


tion, as may be seen by the lexicons. Here it means 0 render ineffi- 
cacious or to subdue, viz. Satan the spiritual enemy of man, who has a 
deadly power ; comp. 1 Cor. 15: 24—26. 2 Tim. 1:10. Tunderstand 
τὸν τὸ κράτος τοῦ ϑανάτου ἔχοντα in this plain and simple manner, 
which renders all the speculations about the power of the devil to 
inflict the sentence of natural death upon men, unnecessary; and 
equally so, all the efforts to show what the Rabbins have taught about 
Sammael the angel of death, yam x52. That a deadly power, i. e. 
a power of leading men to sin and consequently bringing them under 
sentence of spiritual death, is ascribed to Satan in the New Testament 
is sufficiently plain: see John 16: 11. 12:31. 14:30. Eph. 2:2. 6: 
12. Col. 2:15. 2 Cor. 4: 4. et alibi. In 1 John 3:8, is a passage 
altogether of the same tenor as ours. 'o render null the deadly power 
of Satan, is to prevent the effects of it when it leads men to incur the 
sentence of spiritual death, i. e. to redeem them from the effects of such 
a sentence, or to redeem them from the curse of the law, Gal. 3: 13; 
comp. Rom. 5: 9 seq. 1 Thess. 1: 10. Even the temporal consequen- 
ces of death are removed by Christ, 1 Cor. 15: 21, 26, 45, 52 seq. 
Thus interpreted, we have a plain sense of the passage, and one analo- 
gous to that in many other parts of the Scriptures. 

(15) Kal ἀπαλλάξῃ τουτοὺς..... δουλείας, and free those [from con- 
demnation], who during their whole lives, through fear of condemnation, 
had been exposed to a state of bondage. ”Anadde&y means primarily to 
remove, to depel, to depart. But here (as sometimes in classic authors) it 
means to free, to liberate. So Theophylact, ἐλευϑηρῶσαι. It may be 
questionable whether it is connected with ϑανάτου understood, or with 
δουλείας. Either way of construing it would make good sense, and be 
apposite to the design of the writer. I have preferred to connect it 
with ϑάνατος, because of the sentiment in the preceding verse, which 
respects the ϑάνατον inflicted by Satan, i. 6. the condemning sentence 
of the law incurred in consequence of sin, committed through the wiles 
or temptation of Satan. 

(φόβῳ ϑανάτου, I understand as referring to the fear of that con- 
demnation or punishment to which sin exposes men, not to the fear of 
natural death ; for this last is an evil from which no precaution can de- 
liver us, and which Christians as well as others must suffer, notwith- 
standing the death of Christ. But the death of Christ has freed them 
from suffering that condemnation or punishment, which they feared 
might be inflicted in a future life. This seems to be the obvious mean- 
ing of the writer; although it has been generally overlooked. 


ooo ....: HEBREWS II. 15, 16. 


Me παντὸς τοῦ ζῆν, i. q. διὰ πάσης τῆς ζωῆς, the Inf. mode being 
here used (often so in the Greek classics) as a mere noun. But it is 
not the usage of the older Greek writers, to put the Inf. nominascens 
after an adjective, as here. We may, therefore, understand χρόνου as 
implied after παντός. The later Greek, however, affords examples like 
ours; 6. σ. τὸ ἀδιάκριτον ζῆν, τὸ ἀληϑινὸν ζῆν, ἐκ τοῦ προχειμένου 
ζῆν, τῶν Ep. ad. Trall. 

ἔνοχοι ἦσαν δουλείας, had been subjected [obnoxious, exposed] to 
servitude, i. e. subject to a depressed and miserable condition, like that 
of slaves under a tyrannical master. “Zvozog comes from ἐνέχομαι, 
adstringor, and so means adstrictus, alligatus. It usually governs the 
Dative, as Matt. 5: 21, 22 bis; and thus in classic writers. But it al- 
so governs the Genitix e, as here; 6. g. Matt. 26: 66. Mark 3: 29. 14: 
64. 1 Cor. 11:27. James 2:10. Aovdeiag means the servile and 
depressed condition of those who are exercised with the fear of death, 
i. e. of future misery ; or perhaps ἔνοχον δουλείας means exposed to the 
bondage of Satan, whose power had just been mentioned. It is the 
death of Christ which delivers them from either or both. Comp. John 
8 : 32—35, where, however, the δουλεία referred to is the servitude of 
sin. The deliverance spoken of is accomplished in part here, Rom. 
8: 14—17, but fully and finally in another world, where the pious are 
admitted to a state of confirmed happiness. ca παντὸς... δουλείας 
seems to imply, that the whole time of life had been more or less exposed to 
bondage ; which is the case with Christians. From such bondage Christ 
delivers, and will deliver them, i. e. he will save them from future 
misery, and from the power of the devil; and this is the simple senti- 
ment of the text. 

(16) Ov yoo δήπου ἀγγέλων ἐπιλαμβάνεται, moreover he doth not ex- 
tend aid, or afford succour, at all to the angels ; another reason why he 
took on him a nature that was human. He came to the aid of man; 
he became like him, so as the more intimately, to sympathize with him 
and to help him. 70, moreover or for. It stands as a sign of in- 
troducing an additional illustration or argument, which is connected 
(like v. 11 seq.) with v. 5, and is designed to exhibit another reason why 
Jesus took upon him a nature that was human, and also to be turned 
to the same account as before. nov, profecto, omnimodo, certe, 
strengthens the affirmation, i. e. gives intensity to it. “LacdauPaverae, 
lit. ἐο grasp, or to take hold of with the hand. Hence figuratively, (1) 
To assert one’s right to a thing ; to lay hold of it as one’s own; and 
(2) To aid, help, succour, to take hold of when falling or in danger. 


HEBREWS II, 16, 17. 321 


i, the Saini it answers to the SE aan sit, TIN, Wor. The 
Christian fathers have applied it to the assumption of an ners nature, 

which they suppose the writer here denies. But the uses loquendi is 
against this; and the context also; for the apostle had just asserted 
above, that Jesus took on him a nature heman, and it would be a mere 
repetition of the same sentiment here, if we construe v. 16 as meaning 
thus: ‘ He did not assume the angelic nature, but that of the seed of 
Abraham.’ But if the argument be, that ‘Jesus assumed the human 
nature, because he was to aid men and not angels,’ then the 16th verse 
contains a reason why the Saviour did and should take on him the 
nature of aman; viz. that it was altogether accordant with the great 
object of his mission. 

“Σπέρφματος “Afouun, progeny of Abrakam. In such a sense, pro- 
fane as well as sacred writers use σπέρμα. Is it the natural or spirit- 
wal seed of Abraham, which is here meant? Either will make good 
sense, and agree with the object of the writer. Believers are the chil- 
dren of ee Gal. 3: 7; and Gentiles as well as Jews, Rom. 4: 
12—18. 9:7 3:29, 30. So the assertion that Christ died ὑπὲρ 
παντὸς (v. 9) ides not disagree with the assertion that he helped the 
seed of Aibralarre who are both Jews and Gentiles. So Kuinoel, and 
others. But although this interpretation may be sufficiently justified to 
render it worthy of acceptation, | am inclined to believe that it does 
not give the original sense of the writer. He says, “ Christ had a hu- 
man nature; this it behoved him to possess, for he came to help the 
seed of Abraham, 1. 6. those who, being descended from Abraham, 
possessed a nature that was human.’ His assertion extends merely to 
such as he was addressing. But surely this would not imply a denial 
that he helped any others, who were possessed of the same nature. So 
far is it from this, that it implies the contrary ; for the amount of the 
assertion is, ‘He came to help those, who possessed a nature such as 
that which he had assumed.’ So Valckenaer. 

(17) “Oder, an illative particle, whence, i. e. because he was to help 
the seed of Abraham. “Seche...opoemOnvae, he must needs be made 
like unto his brethren, i. e. to men, vs. 10—12. Kura πάντα, i. 6. in 
all things requisite to constitute a nature truly human. The meaning 
is, that he should be wanting in none of the innocent infirmities, and 
in none of the sympathies, of man’s nature. To deduce more than 
this from the expression now in question, would be to do what the wri- 
ter plainly never designed should be done. 


But why must he be made like to his brethren? “/ve ἐλεήμων γένη- 
Al 


322 nesrews 11. 17, 18. 


Tat καὶ πιστὸς ἀρχιερεύς, that he might be a compassionate and faith- 
ful high priest. ἐλεήμων, merciful, sympathizing with those who are 
in distress. As those are best adapted to do this, who have themselves 
been sufferers ; so Jesus took on him our nature, in order that he might 
suffer in it. IJvorog means either faith/ul or worthy of trust and con- 
fidence. in the former sense I take it here; Kuinoel, in the latter. 
Jesus assumed our nature, that he might qualify himself in a peculiar 
manner to exercise compassion toward us, and that he might discharge 
with fidelity the duty laid upon him as our high-priest. A priest to of- 
fer sacrifice for us, must be homogeneous with us. Such a priest was 
Jesus, faithful in discharging the duties of his office. What were those 
duties? They were τὼ πρὸς tov Yeov, things which had respect to 
God, 1. e. services of a religious nature. So Xen. Rep. Laced. 13.2 
seq. 11, ta πρὸς ϑεούς, in the like sense. The phrase τὰ πρὸς 
τὸν Gor, is elliptical. In full it would be thus: χατὰ τὰ πράγματα 
ta πρὸς tov ϑεὸν, faithful as to things ete.: 

But what things were these? “)λάσχεσϑαι τὰς ἁμαρτίας τοῦ λαοῦ. 
The common expression is ἐξιλάσασθαι περὶ τινὸς, as in Lev. 4: 20, 
26, 31, 35; or ἐξελάσασϑαι περὶ τῆς ἁμαρτίας τινός, Lev. 5: 13. 4: 
35. But ἐξιλάσασϑαι ἁμαρτίας also occurs, Dan. 9:24. 1 Sam. 3: 
14. Sirach 28:5. “/Aaozouue means to render propitious, to appease. 
But this sense it can have directly, only when the person appeased is ex- 
pressed or understood after the verb. Hence ἱλάσχεσϑαι ἁμαρτίας must 
mean the same as MNNWM BD, to make appeasement for sin, to cover 
sin, to make atonement for it. The Septuagint sometimes translate 
ἜΞΞ by ἱλάσκομαι. Christ then, as high priest, was faithful to per- 
form the peculiar duty of that office; which was, on the great day of 
atonement, to make a propitiatory sacrifice for the sins of the people. 
How he did this, is shewn in the sequel of the epistle. Here, only so 
much is asserted as was requisite to enforce the considerations which 
the writer had immediately in view. 

(18) Lv ᾧ yao, for since, i.q. ὅτε γάρ, Hebrew WN, because that, 
inasmuch as. Πέπονθεν αὐτὸς nevguodels, he himself suffered when 
exercised with trials. Tiewgagm means to try, to put to the proof in or- 
der to ascertain the disposition, purpose, capacity, etc., of any one. 
This trial may be, (1) For a good purpose ; by subjecting one to any 
evils or dangers, as God tried (22) Abraham, Gen. 22:1; or by pla- 
cing him in circumstances either prosperous or adverse that are of a 
peculiar nature, as God did Israel, Ex. 16: 4. Judg. 2:22. Trial may 
be, (2) For an evil purpose ; as the Pharisees ἐπείρασαν ᾿]ησοῦν, by 


HEBREWs II. 18. 323 


proposing to him ensnaring and subtile questions, Matt. 19: 3seq. 22: 
18, 35, et saepe; or by laying before any one inducements to sin, as 
Satan does before the minds of men, 1 Cor. 7:5. 1 Thess. 3:5; 
comp. James 1:13, 14. In both of these senses Christ was tried. 
“Tt pleased the Lord to bruise him, and to put him to grief, Is. 53: 
10;” also, “It became him, for whom and by whom are all things, to 
advance to glory our Prince and Saviour διὰ παϑημάτων, Heb. 2: 10.” 
The same Saviour was solicited by Satan to sin, Matt. 4: 1,3. Mark 
1: 13. Luke 4:2. Understood in either way, then, the Saviour was 
tempted in like manner as we are (zeta πάντα, καϑ' ὁμοιότητα, Heb. 
4:15), though without sin. That he did not yield to any excitement 
to sin, was owing to the strength of his virtue and holiness, not to the 
weakness of -the temptation in itself considered. Temptation, in the 
second sense, 7s that which is presented to the mind as an inducement to 
sin, and does not relate to the actual state of the mind or person to 
which it is presented. Men tempt God. They tempt Christ ; and 
so did Satan; but there never was any disposition in Christ to yield 
to it. 

There are two or three cases, however, in which the word zecgato 
seems to imply a yielding to sin, 1. 6. the effect of πειρασμὸς upon any 
one; 6. g. Gal. 6: 1, perhaps James 1: 14; comp. ἀπείραστος, not in- 
duced to sin, in James 1: 13. But this is an wnusual sense of the word 
πειράζω, and altogether inapplicable to the Saviour, who was “ separ- 
ate from sinners,” Heb. 7: 26. Christ then, πεέρασϑείς, being proved, 
both by sufferings and by solicitations to sin, δύναται τοῖς πείραζομε- 
νοις βοηϑῆσαι, is fitted in a peculiar manner to succour those who un- 
dergo either kind of trial. He is not only possessed of a merciful re- 
gard for them (v. 17), but he has direct and immediate sympathy with 
them, the result of his own personal feeling and experience. 

Wonderful condescension of redeeming love! Here is the great 
mystery of godliness, God made manifest in the flesh. And while Je- 
sus sits on the throne of the universe, as Lord over all, the Christian is 
reminded that he does this in his nature, as his brother, v.11. In the 
person of Jesus, man is exalted above the angels: yea, he himself is to 
attain a rank superior to theirs; for while Jesus passed them by (v. 16), 
he laid down his life for us, in order to exalt us above them, 1 Cor. 6: 
3. Deeper and deeper still becomes the mystery. The debt of grati- 
tude appears boundless, when viewed in this light; and the baseness 
of our ingratitude and disobedience as boundless too. What can we 


. 


324 neBRews II. J. 


do less than to lie down in the dust, overwhelmed with a sense of our 
guilt, and exclaim with the prophet, “ Who is like unto thee? A God 
forgiving iniquity, and passing by the offences of thine heritage !’’ 


Next to the consideration that the “ law was dtatayels OV ἀγγέλων, the grounds of its pre- 
eminence in the estimation of the Jows were, the exalted character of Moses, and the dignity and 
offices of the high priest, who was the instrument of reconciling the people to God, when they 
had Jost his favour by sinning. [n respect to both these points, the apostle undertakes to shew 
that the gospel has a preference, because that Jesus is superior. If he be compared with Moses as 


πλοῦ, ἀπόστολος, curator aedis sacrae (οἴχου, v. 2,3), he will be found to excel him. If he 
be compared with the high priest, his superiority in every respect is equally visible. The first 
comparison is made in 3:2—6, and the warning against defection from the gospel that im- 
mediately follows it, is continued through 3:7—19 to 4: 13. The writer then proceeds with the 
comparison of Christ as high priest, and extends it through the remainder of the doctrinal part of 
the epistle. 


CHAP. III. 


(1) “OGev, whence, i.gq. δεὰ τοῦτο, by which Chrysostom expresses 
the sense of it. It refers to place, in common usage ; but it is also an 
illative in argument, particularly in our epistle. 

The manner in which the writer makes his transition here from one 
topic to another, is deserving of notice. He had just been shewing how 
and why Christ was a “merciful and faithful high priest, and able to 
succour all who are tempted.” He now adds, ‘ ὅϑεν, i.e. allowing 
these things to be true, it follows that we are under peculiar obligation 
to contemplate and well examine the Saviour’s character, before we 
venture to reject him.’ But in making this suggestion, the writer at 
the same moment introduces new topics for discussion, viz. the compar- 
ison of Christ with Moses, and with the high priest under the Jewish 
dispensation. The transition is almiost insensible, as it 1s actually imtro- 
duced under the form of a deduction from the preceding discussion. 

’Adeigol, as applied by Christians to each other, means one of the 
same faith or profession, with the adjunct idea of possessing a friendly, 
brotherly feeling, Acts 9:30. 11:29. 1 Cor. 5:11. ἃ]. ““γιοε, con- 
secrated, devoted, i. 6. to Christ, set apart as Christians; or professing 
to be holy, pure. H#icly, in the sense of actually possessing internal 
purity, the apostle did not mean to affirm that all were whom he ad- 
dressed ; for surely when the ancient prophets called the whole Jewish 
nation DYDAp (ἀγιοι), or WII By (λαὸς ayeos), they did not mean to 
assert that every individual among them was spiritually sanctified. 


HeBReEws III. ]. 325 


But to remind his brethren, (brethren in a double sense here, as they 
were also the writer’s kindred according to the flesh), that they had been 
consecrated to Christ, and set apart as his disciples, and that they pro- 
fessed to be pure, was altogether adapted to prepare them for the ex- 
hortation to fidelity which ensues. In a like sense the ancient prophets 
called the whole body of the Jewish nation holy, wisp. 

ἈΑλήσεως ἐπουρανίου μέτοχοι, lit. partalers of the heavenly invita- 
tion. Αλῆσις is the invitation given on the part of Christ and God to 
men, to partake of the blessings proffered by the Christian religion. It 
does not appear, however, to designate the offers of the gospel generally 
considered, and in reference to all men without discrimination ; for it is 
applied, in the New Testament, only to those who by profession are 
Christians. ἄλῆσις, then, is the proffer of blessings to such; the invi- 
tation given to all the professed friends of the Christian religion, to 
accept the favours which the Redeemer is ready to bestow in case of 
their obedience. The epithet ἐπουρανίου may mean, in this case, that 
the blessings proffered are of a celestial nature. So Wahl and others, 
who compare the phrase with 2739 ἄνω κλήσεως, Phil. 3:14. Thus 
interpreted the implication of the passage would be, that the proffered 
blessings of the gospel were ἐπουράνεα, in distinction from those of- 
fered under the law, i.e. they are of a higher, more spiritual, more sub- 
lime nature. But ἐπουρανίου may also mean, that the χλῆσις was 
given from heaven, i.e. by one from heaven, viz. Christ ; comp. 12: 25 
and 2:3. Understood in either way, it is apposite to the purpose of 
the writer, and well adapted to urge upon his readers their obligation to 
adhere to the Christian religion. 

Karavonoure, observe well, consider attentively, perpendite, ad ani- 
mum revocate; and this, in order that they might not be tempted to 
swerve from their fidelity to Christ, out of excessive regard to the Mo- 
5810 institutes ; for Christ, as the writer proceeds to shew, was in all 
respects superior to Moses. 

Tov ἀπόστολον... ἡμῶν, the apostle and high priest of our reli- 
gion. The appellation ἀπόστολον (which is an ἅπαξ λεγόμενον as 
applied to Christ), has given rise to much philological and critical dis- 
cussion. ‘The word itself may convey two ideas, which are nearly 
related but not identical. (1) ᾿«“πόστολος is equivalent to ὁ ἀπέσταλ- 
μένος ; as Thomas Magister explains it, quoting Demosthenes as em- 
ploying it in this manner. So Origen: ἕκαστος τῶν πεμπομένων ἀπὸ 
τίνος, ἀπόστολος ἐστε τοῦ πεμψάντος, in Johan. p. 398. ed. Col. It 
means, then, any messenger, any person commissioned or sent to perform 


326 neBReEws III. 1. 


duties of any kind for another, and particularly to make known his 
will, desire, or command ; in which sense it is commonly employed by 
the New Testament writers. (2) The Jews applied the term 3, 
(from M23 mitterc), to the minister of the synagogue, i.e. the person 
who presided over it and directed all its officers and affairs, the curator 
of all its concerns, aedituus, negotii aedis sacrae curator; see Buxtorf 
Lex. Chald. verbum 1°>w , and Vitringa de Vet. Synag. Lib. III. P. 2. 
c.2. In either of these senses it may be understood, in the passage 
under consideration. Interpreted agreeably to the first sense of ἀπύστο- 
λος, the meaning would be, that Christ is the messenger of God to 
men, in order to communicate his will, and accomplish the business to 
be done for the establishment of the new dispensation. But the partic- 
ular reason why he is called ἀπόστολος here, lies probably in the com- 
parison which the writer is about to make of Jesus the head of the new 
dispensation with Moses the head of the old. When Moses received a 
divine commission to become the leader and head of the Israelites, God 
says to him, PAM ΞΘ, 1 have sent thee; which idea is frequently re- 
peated, Ex. 3: 10, 12, 14, 15. Moses was then 28, ἀπόστολος, in 
respect to this important business. Jesus, in like manner, was sent on 
an errand of the like kind, but of still greater importance. He was 
sent by the Father for this purpose, John 3: 34. 5: 36, 37. 6:29. 10: 
90, al. Now as the writer was just about to make a comparison between 
Christ and Moses, it was very natural that he should call Christ ἀπό- 
στολον, i. 6. one sent or commissioned of God, because Moses was thus 
sent ; as the passages above cited prove. 

We might acquiesce in this explanation, as most interpreters have 
done, were it not that one still better may be found, in the supposition 
that ἀπόστολος is here employed in the second or Jewish sense as ex- 
plained above. The apostle proceeds immediately to speak of Moses 
and of Christ as presiding over, and administering the affairs of, the 
οἶχος committed respectively to them (vs. 2—4); i.e. each was a 
Maasm πιθοῦ, ἄγγελος ἐκκλησίας, curator aedis sacrae, ἀπόστολος in 
the Jewish sense. This certainly gives a meaning more apposite to the 
context, and indeed a sense which, in connection with it, seems to be a 
necessary one. The general idea of being sent of God, or divinely 
commissioned, is retained; inasmuch as Moses was thus sent and com- 
missioned, and with him the comparison is made. The meaning then 
is, that if the curator aedis sacrae et novae be compared with the cura- 
tor aedis sacrae et antiquac, the result will be such as the sequel 
discloses. 


HEBREWS III. 1, 2. 327 


Kai ἀρχιερέα, high priest. Two reasons may be given for this ap- 
pellation ; the one, that in Ps. 110: 4 the Messiah is so named; the 
other, that the writer means to compare him, in the sequel, as making 
atonement for men by the propitiatory sacrifice which he offered, with 
the high priest of the Jews who made expiation for the people. The 
latter I regard as the principal reason of the appellation here. 

Τῆς ὁμολογίας ἡμῶν, of our profession or confession; i. 6. the apos- 
tle and high priest whom we have confessed or acknowledged as ours. 
This they had done when they became Christians. “Owodoyias is us- 
ed here as an adjective or participle ; and the phrase is equivalent to 
ἀπόστολον ἡμῶν καὶ ἀρχιερέα ὁμολογούμενον, i.e. the apostle and 
high priest τῆς πίστεως ἡμῶν (as Chrysostom paraphrases it),in whom 
we have believed, or whom we have acknowledged as ours. Comp. 2 
Cor. 9:13, τῇ ὑποταγὴ τῆς ὁμολογίας ὑμῶν, your professed subjec- 
tion; Heb. 10 : 23. 4: 14. 

Others take ὁμολογίας in the sense of covenant (m7), which the 
word sometimes has in profane writers ; see Schleus. Lex. in verbum. 
This sense of the word would not be inapposite here, inasmuch as it 
would convey the idea of an engagement or covenant made with Christ, 
by those whom the apostle is addressing. But as this use of the word 
is not found in the New Testament, it would hardly be proper to admit 
it here. 

The writer now proceeds to shew the reason why the Hebrews ought 
attentively to regard Jesus, in respect to the two great points of com- 
parison which he had hinted at, by applying to him the epithets ἀποσ- 
TOAOS and ἀρχιερεύς. 

(2) Πιστόν, faithful, i.e. he fully and truly performed the duties of 
his station. See 2:17, where, in like manner, he is called πεστοὸς ἀρ- 
χιερεύς. Others interpret πέστος, entrusted with or worthy of trust; a 
sense, indeed, which the word sometimes has; but it is not so apposite 
here. 7 ποιήσαντι αὐτόν, to him who constituted or appointed him, 
viz. as ἀπόστολον ; to him who sent him, John 10: 36, i. 6. to him who 
made him πολ , curator aedis sacrae. So ἐποίησε, Mark. 3: 14. 

Τῷ οἴκῳ αὐτοῦ, his house, i. 6. family, meaning the Jewish nation, 
or his worshipping people. Οἴκος evidently does not mean temple here, 
for that was not built in the time of Moses; nor does it mean daberna- 
cle, for over that Aaron presided and not Moses. It means, then, the 
spiritual house committed to Moses, i. e. the Jewish nation who were 
to be guided, regulated, and instructed in spiritual things, by the reve- 
lations which he gave them. So Chrysostom, who substitutes λαὸν as 


328 HEBREWS III. 2, 3. 


an explanation of οἴκον. Soin English we use house for family, and 
church (οἴχος θεοῦ) for the worshippers in it. Moreover it is only in 
this way, that a comparison can be made between Moses and Christ ; 
as the latter was not the minister of any /éteral house, but Curator aedis 
Dei sacrae et spiritualis. Comp.1 Tim. 3:15. 1 Pet. 2:5, οἴκος 
πνευματικός. Eph. 2: 20—22. Heb. 3: 6. 

The sentiment of v. 2 is, that with regard to fidelity in discharging 
the duties of his office, as head of the new dispensation, Christ yields 
not in any respect to Moses, who (as the Scripture testifies, Num. 12: 
7) was faithful in respect to all his duties toward the people of God that 
were committed to his care. In this respect there is no inferiority. In 
another respect, however, Christ may justly claim great superiority over 
Moses ; as the writer now goes on to shew. 

(3) Aokns, honour, dignity, regard ; governed in the Gen. by ἠξέω- 
ται. Hélorac, is worthy, deserves, is counted worthy. °Aévow also 
means, not unfrequently, to obtain, to acquire; e. g. οἵ χαταξεωϑέντες 
τῆς τοῦ πνεύματος yaouros, those who have obtained the grace of the 
Spirit, Chrysostom I. p. 730; τῆς ἐπιγνώσεως τοῦ ὄντος μὴ καταξιού- 
μένος, not having obtained a knowledge of what is real, Basil I. p. 515. 
In a similar way it is also used in the classics; as τῶν μεγίστων ἀξι- 
oumsvos, having obtained the greatest honours, Lys. Orat. p. 101. ed. 
Taylor. But still, this is not the usual sense of the word ; nor does it 
so well fit the passage under consideration as the other and usual mean- 
ing, although many commentators have preferred it. 40&n¢ παρὰ 
Moavony, glory in comparison with Moses, as in Hebrew W272 3422. 
See on 1: 4, 9, where παρά is employed in the same way. 

Ka ὅσον may signify in proportion as, as much as, and may have 
relation here to πλείονος in the first member of the verse. The usual 
Greek method of expression in such cases is T00@.... ὅσῳ, etc. But 
I prefer the rendering tz as much as, because the nature of the proposi- 
tion seems to require it. So Schulz, Eng. Version, al. 

Thhsiova τιμὴν χ τ. 4, he who builds a house, has more honour than 
the house; i.e. the difference between the honour due to Moses and 
that due to Christ, is as great as between the honour due to the founder 
of a house [family] and that which should be paid to the family which 
he founds; or between the honour due to the architect that framed a 
building, and that due to the building itself. It is difficult to say in 
which of these senses the writer meant that the words should be taken. 
Either fits his purpose. Either is designed to shew that Christ, at the 
same time that he is the head of the new spiritual house, is also the 


HEBREWS III. 3. 329 


founder of it; while Moses, who was at the head of the ancient spiritu- 
al house, was himself only one of the household. As a steward or 
overseer of a house, while he is curator of all in the house, is still but a 
servant; so Moses (as is asserted in v. 5) was but a servant, while 
Christ, who was curator, was also Son, and therefore, “‘ heir and lord 
of all.’ The point of comparison between Moses and Christ, in which 
the latter appears to have a decided preference, is not the being at the 
head of God’s house or family, (for such an office Moses sustained) ; 
but it consists in this, viz. that while Moses was curator, he was also 
ϑεράπων ; but while Christ was curator, he was at the same time υἷος, 
and κατασχευαστὴς οἴκου. 

Δατασκευάζω means to furnish, to fit up, to make ready, i. 6. for 
use; also to construct, prepare, build, condere, exstruere. In some cas- 
es it seems to combine the idea of constructing and furnishing, both of 
which indeed are included under the general idea of preparing or mak- 
ing ready for use; 6. g. Heb. 9: 2—6. The Seventy sometimes used 
this word in order to translate "wy, e. g. in Prov. 23: 5. 2 Chron. 32: 
5; sometimes they employed it as corresponding to N73, as in Is. 40: 
28. 43:7. So the book of Wisdom, 9: 2, “ΒΥ thy wisdom χατεσχεύ- 
ασας τὸν ἄνϑρωπον, thou hast created [formed] man.” In our text, 
κατασχευασας αὐτόν scil. οἴκον, is equivalent to the Latin condere do- 
mum. But as οὔκος here means family, household, so κατασχευάσας 
must be taken in a sense that will correspond to this, viz. that of estab- 
lishing, instituting, founding. 

Others render the last clause of the verse thus; inasmuch as he who 
founded the household hath greater honour from the house, understand- 
ing τεμὴν οἴκου to be the honour which the house renders, and thus 
making o¢zov dependent on τέμιη)ν instead of πλείονα. Storr translates 
the whole verse thus; For Christ hath a preference above Moses, the 
greater in proportion as this house is more highly estimated by its found- 
er. But these methods of rendering, (to say nothing of the improbable 
and forced construction which they give to the language of the verse), 
would constrain us to Jose sight of the apodosis, which the latter part of 
the verse evidently contains. Christ, says the apostle, has more glory 
than Moses. How? or how much more? The answer is; ‘As much 
more as is due to the founder of a family, [or to the architect of a build- 
ing], above that which is to be paid to the family itself, [or to the edi- 
fice which is reared|.’. In other words Christ is to be honoured as the 
head and founder of the o¢zo¢, which has been erected; Moses, only as 
the head; for he himself was still a part of the οἴκος itself, ὡς ϑεράπων 

42 


339 nesrews IIT. 3, 4. 


v. 5. Interpreted in any other way, the whole force of the comparison 
seems to vanish. In this way it is (to say the least) intelligible, if not 
quite simple. If the reader wishes to see the endless discrepancies 
among critics about this and the following verse, he may consult Wolfii 
Curae Philol., or Dindorf’s edition of Ernesti in Ep. ad Hebraeos. 

(4) This verse has been a kind of offendiculum criticorum in past 
ages, and has never yet, in any commentary which I have seen, been 
satisfactorily illustrated. The difficulty lies not in the simple sentiment 
of the verse by itself considered, (for there is none in this respect) ; nor 
in the words, which in themselves are not obscure ; but in discovering 
and explaining the connection in which this verse stands with the con- 
text, and how it modifies or affects it. Ifthe verse be entirely omitted, 
and the third verse be immediately connected with the fifth, there 
seems to be nothing wanting, nothing omitted that is at all requisite to 
finish the comparison which the writer is making. Nay, on account of 
the difficulty which adheres to the 4th verse, the mind is greatly relieved 
by the omission of it; and little is then presented, which raises doubts 
or scruples about the object of the writer. There is no evidence, how- 
ever, that the verse in question isia mere gloss; at least none from 
manuscripts or versions, which is of any value. We must receive it, 
then, as a part of the text, the integrity of which (however difficult the 
passage may be) cannot be made to depend on our ability to explain it. 

ilas yao otzog.... ϑεύς, we may translate thus: every house ts built 
by some one; but he who formed all things is God. But what are the 
all things (τὰ πάντα) which are formed or built? The universe? Or 
all οἴκοι, all dispensations, viz. both the Jewish and Christian? The 
context seems to demand the latter meaning; the former has common 
usage in its favour. Is it appropriate to construe it agreeably to this 
usage? It is directly to the writer’s purpose, to shew that every dis- 
pensation must of necessity have some founder, and that this founder 
was Christ. But how is this shewn? To say that God, simply consid- 
ered, was the author of all things, would not be to shew that Christ 
was the founder of the Jewish and Christian οἴκοι. Indeed, I can see 
no possible connection of this proposition, with the object which the 
writer has in view. Nor can I see how Christ is shewn by him to be a 
founder at all, unless I understand him to assert this to be the fact, be- 
cause Christ is divine or is ϑεός. The argument would then stand thus ; 
‘God is the author of all things, i. 6. of the Jewish and Christian o¢xoe ; 
Christ is God; of course he must be regarded as the original author or 
founder of these dispensations.’ The fact itself that Christ is ϑεός, it 


HEBREWS III. 4. ool 


would seem the writer could not hesitate to assert, after what he 
has said, chap. 1: 8—12. John (1: 1) asserts the same thing; and 
Paul, in Rom. 9: 5, and in other places. I must regard the expression 
here, as predicated on what the writer had said in chap. I. respecting 
the Son. The amount then of the reasoning seems to be: ‘ Consider 
that Christ, as ϑεὲός and the former of all things, must be the author 
too of the Jewish and Christian dispensations; which shews that a glo- 
ry belongs to him, not only in his mediatorial office and as being at the 
head of the new dispensation, but also as the founder both of this and 
the Jewish dispensation in his divine character; while Moses is to be 
honoured only as the head of the Jewish dispensation, in the quality of 
a commissioned superintendent, but not as author and founder.’ 

All other methods of constructing this passage seem to me to fail of 
making it contribute to the writer’s purpose; and this is, in my view, 
an insuperable objection against them. Kuinoel says: “God is the 
founder of both the Jewish and Christian family ; and then he cites 
with approbation Boehme, who says: “the words od2....@<0¢ mean, 
that the Messiah, (whom the writer had tacitly called κατασχευάσαν- 
va), is not literally and absolutely to be so named, but only in so far as 
God, the supreme founder of all things, had constituted him such, i. e. 
so far as God had constituted the church by Christ.” And Bloomfield 
in his recent work on the New Testament, adopts the exposition of 
Newcome, the substance of which is, that v. 4th affirms, that ‘Christ is 
the visible representative of the Supreme God, the ultimate head of all 
things ;’ which in substance comes to the same thing as the exegesis of 
Boehme and Kuinoel. But where, I ask, is such an intimation here ? 
The fact itself I do not call in question at all; but how is it to the 
present purpose of the writer, whose design is to show the superiority of 
Christ to Moses? Moses, as the delegate of God, was the founder of the 
Jewish institution; and if Christ, as those commentators assert, is 
merely declared to be only a delegated founder, then in what way does 
the writer make out the superiority of Christ to Moses? Both were 
delegates of the same God; and both founders of a new and divine dis- 
pensation. If Christ then is not here asserted to be founder in some 
other character than that of dedegate, | am unable to perceive any force 
in the writer’s argument. 

Still, I admit the difficulty of the passage, and could hardly venture to 
build principles of theology upon it, until the illustration is clearer and 
more certain. I must say, however, in accordance with the sentiments 
of Cramer (whose exposition agrees with that which I have given above), 


332 HEBREWS III. 4, 5. 


that I cannot help wondering that any interpreters should come with 
confidence to an exposition such as that of Kuinoel and Boehme. 1! 
am aware that the interpretation which I have given, implies that the 
sentence of the apostle in v. 4 is an enthymeme; it wants the conclu- 
sion, viz. Christ is God. But if Christ is the founder of all dispensa- 
tions, and he who founds all is God, I do not see why this is not suffi- 
ciently implied. The expositions: which differ from this, are largely 
canvassed and solidly refuted by Cramer. 

(5) ᾿δῖν ὅλῳ τῷ οἴκῳ αὐτοῦ, in all his house; not ἐπὶ τὸν οἴκον 
αὐτοῦ, over his house, as it is expressed in the following verse, where 
the writer speaks of Christ. I think the writer means here to make 
a distinction, by these different modes of expression, between the rela- 
tion of Moses to the house in which he was ϑεράπων, and that of 
Christ to the house over which he was as υἱός, The former was ἕν τῷ 
οἴκῳ, in the house, i. 6. he himself belonged to the family of God, was 
simply a member of it in the capacity of ϑεράπων; while the latter 
was ἐπὶ τὸν οἴκον, over the house, i. e. lord of the house, founder and 
proprietor of it. 

Avrov, His, 1. 6. God’s house, both in v.2 and here. Grod’s house- 
hold means, those who profess to be his worshippers, to beleng to 
him. In both cases αὐτοῦ might refer to Christ, (by writing it thus, 
αὐτοῦ), were it not that in Num. 12:7 (from which the passage is 
quoted), the language is my house (7m2); and it is God who says this. 
The sense, however, would not be materially changed by referring 
αὐτοῦ to Christ. The scope of the sentence does not depend on this ; 

for whether you say o¢zo¢ αὐτοῦ is the family of God, or of Christ, the 
" same persons are designated by the word οὔκος in both cases. 

Θεράπων, according to general usage, differs from δοῦλος and ofxe- 
της, being a more honorable appellation. E. g. the correlate of δοῦλος 
and οὐκέτης is δεσπότης ; but ϑεράπων is related to πατήρ, κύριος, 
or βασιλεύς. In English, we should call the former a servant or a 
slave; the latter, an assistant, an usher, a helper, etc. ‘The Heb. 12%, 
however, means servants of every or any rank. But Sim> 322, ser- 
vants of Jehovah, is always an appellation of honour. In the East, 
courtiers of the highest rank pride themselves in the appellation of 
king’s servants. ‘The word ϑεράπων is very happily applied by the 
Seventy, and after them in the present case by our author to Moses, who 
was a servant of Jehovah in a highly honourable sense ; comp. Josh. 
1:1,2. After all, the ϑεράπων is inferior to the πατήρ or κύριος of 


neBREws III. 5, 6. 333 


a family. Moses, therefore, was inferior to Christ, who was xvgcog 
οἴκου ϑεοῦ. 
Lig μαρτύριον τῶν λαληϑησομένων, for the testifying of those 
things which were to be declared, i. e. to make disclosures to the Israel- 
ites of those things which were to be revealed under the ancient dispen-, 
sation, or during the Mosaic period. ‘The meaning is, that Moses was 
a ϑεράπων of God, for delivering to the people the ancient oracles. 
Moaorvgvov may signify either instruction, or declaration, publication ; 
just as μαρτυρέω signifies in the New Testament, docere, instituere, 
and also declarare, notum facere; as may be seen in the lexicons. 
«Ἰαληϑησομένων may also mean, either things to be announced, pub- 
lished, or things to be inculcated, taught. 'The sense will not be mate- 
rially altered by either method of translation. ‘The meaning will still be vs 
simply, that Moses was to be the instrument of delivering to the peo- δ ΥἹΈ 
ple divine communications, or he was to teach them in matters of re- 
ligion. 
(6) Xovorog δὲ... ἐσμὲν ἡμεῖς, but Christ as a Son, over his house, 
whose house we are, i. e. to whose family we belong, we who have made 
a Christian profession ; meaning himself and those whom he addressed. 
This is as much as to say: ‘We now belong not to the house over 
which Moses was placed, but to that which Christ governs or adminis- 
ters. durov, his i. 6. God’s, our English translators have rendered as 
if written αὐτοῦ, sc. ἑαυτοῦ, his own; so Beza, Vogel, Erasmus, Hein- 
richs, Kuinoel, and others. But Stephens, Mill, Bengel, Wetstein, 
Griesbach, Knapp, and 'Titmann read αὐτοῦ, as I have translated. 
The, writer adds, however, that we really belong to the house which 
Christ governs, ἐάνπερ τὴν παρῥησίαν..... κατάσχωμεν, provided we 
hold fast unto the end our confidence and joyful hope. Παρῥησία “ 
means originally the liberty of speaking boldly without fear or restraint ; 
and comes etymologically from παρά and ῥῆσις. The secondary 


4 


sense is, boldness, confidence. Ααὐχημα primarily means, gloriatio, 
the act of glorying, or that in which we glory or joy; secondarily, it 
means joy, glory, etc. I take the phrase as a Hendiadys. “HAnidoc 
is the subject, and καύχημα qualifies it; as is often the case with simi- 
lar constructions, in many parts of the sacred writings, e. g. 1 Tim. 6: 
17. Philem. 6. Rom. 6: 4. Col. 2:5. 2Cor. 4:7. Gal. 2:14. Here 
the Gen. (as in the instance before us) is the principal noun, and the 
other noun joined with it, (whatever case it may be in), serves only in 
the office of an adjective. More usually, indeed, the noun in the Gen. 
serves the office of an adjective, both in Hebrew and in Hebrew-Greek. 


304 HEBREWS III. 6—8. 


But the above cases shew, that the noun which precedes the Gen. not 
unfrequently serves the same end ; and such too is the case in Hebrew, 
as may be seen in my Heb. Gramm. § 440. 

The confidence and joyful hope here mentioned, is that which the 
Christian religion inspires. This must be held βεβαίαν, firm, stead- 
fast. Μεβαίαν here agrees, in respect to grammatical construction, 
with παρδησίαν the remoter noun in the preceding phrase, (as is fre- 
quently the fact im such cases), but it is related to the whole phrase in 
regard to its meaning. Lvs τέλους, to the end, i. 6. of life; in other 
words, ‘ We must persevere to the last, in maintaining our Christian 
profession; we must never abandon the confident and joyful hope 
which it inspires, if we mean to be considered as belonging to the fami- 
ly of Christ.’ 

(7) Avo, wherefore, i.e. because Christ is superior to Moses and 
has higher claims upon us, hearken, Christian brethren, to the admoni-— 
tions which I give you, in the words by which the Israelites of old were 
warned.—Aadoais λέγει τὸ πνεῦμα TO ἅγιον, 1. 6. as the divine word 
(Ps. χουν.) given by the influence of the Holy Spirit, saith ; comp. Acts 
1:16. 28:25. This is one of the various ways of appealing to the 
Scripture, which was usual in the time of the apostles; and which is 
still practised by our churches. It involves the idea, that the Holy 
Scriptures are given by divine inspiration, are ϑεύπνευστοι. 

Σήμερον, to day, now, at present, like the Hebrew 55773, to which it 
corresponds. “Hav τῆς φωνῆς αὐτοῦ ἀκούσητε, when or whilst ye hear 
his voice. So, perhaps, ἐάν may be rendered, like the Hebrew BN, to 
which it corresponds; comp. John 6:62. 12:32. 13:20. 14:3. 1 
John 3:2. So Sept. for oN, Prov. 3: 24. Is. 24: 13, et alibi. But it 
is not material to adopt this rendering. Jf will give a good sense, viz. 
now if, i.e. in case, you are willing to hearken, ete. “Ὡς φωνῆς 
αὐτοῦ, i. 6. his warning voice, his admonition. 

(8) My σκληρύνητε τὰς καρδίας ὑμών. To harden the heart, is to 
make it insensible. In this case, to harden the heart is to remain in- 
sensible to divine admonition, to neglect it, to act in a contumacious 
manner. The form σκληρύνω is of the later Greek. The classical 
writers used σχληοοῦν, and this in a physical sense only, not in a moral 
one. 

Παραπιχρασμῷ corresponds here to the Hebrew 727772, strife, con- 
tention. It is not a classic word; but it is employed by the Septuagint. 
The meaning of it is, exacerbation, provocation, embittering, from 
πικραίνω, to be bitter, to embitter. It is here applied to designate the 


HEBREWS III. 8—-10. 335 


conduct of the Israelites, who provoked the displeasure of God ; in par- 
ticular, : signifies their unbelief and murmuring at Massah or Meribah, 
Ex. 17: 7, and afterwards at other places. 

bie τὴν ἡμέραν. «ἐρήμῳ, when they tempted [God] in the desert. 
Kara τὴν ἡμέραν, Hebrew ninD (for 51°32), as in the day that, when. 
Πειρασμοῦ, of temptation, i. 6. ‘their unbelief and murmuring put the 
patience of God to a trial, (speaking after the manner of men). Te 
θάξω means, éo solicit to do evil, but also to prove, to assay. When 
the Scriptures speak of men as tempting God, the meaning is, that men 
do that which puts the divine patience, forbearance, goodness, etc., to 
a trial, i. 6. they make it difficult, as it were, to preserve a strict regard 
to these. Dindorf is mistaken, when he asserts here that aecga¢w is 
never used by the Greek writers in the sense of enticing to sin; for 


πειρᾶν (i. q. πειραζειν) yuvatzxe is a very common phrase, in the best 
Greek writers. 


(9) Ov, when, adverb, i. 4. ὅπου, as Oecumenius remarks. Οἱ πα- 
τέρες ὑμῶν, i.e. the ancient Israelites. “Lme(oaoay me... . ἐδοκίμα- 
Gav μὲ, tempted me; they tried me etc., i.e. they put me to a thorough 
trial ; the repetition of a synonymous word denotes intensity. I put a 
semicolon, however, after ἐπείρασαν here, as Dr. Knapp has done in his 
Greek Testament, and so join ἐδοχίμασάν with τέσσαράκοντα ἔτη. 
So Kuinoel. 

Kai εἶδον, although they saw. So zat in Luke 18:7. John 8: 32. 
14:30. 17:25. Rev. 3:1, et al. In the same manner the Hebrew 3, 
Gen. 18.27. Mal. 2:14, et al. Teoougaxovre ἕτη is joined (in the 
Hebrew) with the following verse, forty years was I grieved, etc. But 
this depends on the punctation-system of the Masorites, which the 
apostle has not followed. In regard to the sense, it matters not with 
which the verb is joined. If they tempted God forty years, he was 
grieved by their conduct during the same time; and if he was grieved 
by them for that time, it was because they tempted him. The clause, 
they tried me, although etc., is intended to designate the aggravated 
παραπικρασμύς of the Hebrews in the wilderness, which lasted during 
forty years. 

(10) Avo, wherefore, i.e. because they tempted me, etc. This word 
is not in the Hebrew nor Septuagint. 'The writer has added it to the 
quotation, in order to render the sense of the passage more impressive 
or explicit. 

Προσώχϑιζα, T was indignant, was offended at. The word is Hel- 
lenistic. The Greeks use ὀχϑέω and ὀχϑίζω. According to etymol- 


336 neBREws ITI. 10,11. 


ogy, it consists of πρός, to, against, upon, and ὄχϑη, bank, shore. It 
is applied primarily to a ship infringing upon the shore, or (as we 
say) running aground. It answers to the Hebrew Yip, DAP, ON, etc. 

ἢ γενεᾷ ἐκείνη, the men of that age, or as we say in English, the 
generation then upon the stage. 

‘del πλανῶνται τῇ καρδίᾳ, the corresponding Hebrew is, "2h ἘΣ 
rt 325, a people of erring heart are they, the word ἀεί having nothing 
in the Original which corresponds to it. Still, the sense of the Hebrew 
is tantamount to what the apostle (with the Septuagint) has expressed in 
the Greek. To err in heart may mean, either to err in judgment, or in 
disposition, intention ; for the Hebrew 235, ΞΞ (and after it the Greek 
καρδία), means either animus, judicium, or mens, cogitatio, desiderium. 
I understand xagd/a here, however, as used according to the Hebrew 
idiom, (in which it is often pleonastic, at least it seems so to us), so that 
the phrase imports simply, they always err, i.e. they are continually 
departing from the right way. 

Aviol δὲ οὐκ ἔγνωσαν τὰς ὁδοὺς μου, and they have not approved 
my doings. Γινώσκω (like the Hebrew 237, Ps. 1: 6. 31: 11) means 
to approve, to like, to be pleased with ; comp. Matt. 7: 23. John 10: 14, 
15, 27. 2 Tim. 2: 19. ᾿Οδὸς corresponds to the Hebrew 577, which 
means counsel, design, purpose, also operation, manner of conducting or 
acting towards any one. In this last sense I take the word to be em- 
ployed here. The meaning is: ‘The Israelites had been discontented 
with the manner in which God had dealt with them in the wilderness ; 
they disapproved his manner of treating them.’ See, for an illustration 
of this, Deut. 8: 2—5. 4: 382—37, and particularly 29: 2—4. 

(11) ᾿ς, so, so that, a conjunction; see Wahl on αἷς, 11.2. “Zv τῇ 
ὀργὴ μου, in my indignation, viz. that which their unbelief and contu- 
macy had excited. Comp. παραπικρασμῷ in v. 8th, which means, the 
provocation given by the Israelites. 

Lt εἰσελεύσονται, they shall not enter. Zi borrows its negative mean- 
ing from the Hebrew 58, to which it corresponds. ‘The Hebrews used 
DX in the latter clause of an oath, which ran thus: God do so to me, ΤῈ 
(oN) Ido thus, etc. See the full form in 1 Sam. 3: 17. 2 Sam. 3: 35. 
2K.6: 31. The former part of this oath was sometimes omitted, and 
DN had then the force of a strong negative ; see 2 Sam. 11: 11. 1 Sam. 
14: 45, alibi; vide Ges. Heb. Lex. δ, C. 1. c. Soin Ps. 95: 11, 
ΝΞ ON contains a strong negative, which the Septuagint (and our 
author after them) have rendered, εἰ εἰσελεύσονται. Comp. Heb. 4: 
3,5. The passage exhibits God as speaking after the manner of men, 


HEBREWS III. 11—13. OoT 


and as affected, like them, with feelings of indignation. The idea 
conveyed by such expressions plainly is, that God, as a measure of jus- 
tice to the Israelites on account of their wickedness, gave solemn as- 
surance that they should not enter into his rest. 

Hig τὴν κατάπαυσίν wou, Hebrew "71272, my rest, means such rest 
as I enjoy, or such rest as I have prepared or provided. See more on 
the subject of this resé, in the commentary on Chap. IV. 

(12) Minors ἔσται... .. ἀπιστίας, lest there be in any of you an 
evil, unbelieving heart. °Anvorias, of unbdelicf, is here used as an ad- 
jective to qualify καρδία, according to an idiom very common both in 
the Old and New Testament. 

‘Lv τῷ ἀποστῆναι ἀπὸ ϑεοῦ ζῶντος, in apostatizing from the living 
God, or rather, so that he may apostatize, etc. “Anootnvac is to revolt, 
to apostatize, to make defection from, to fail away. Θεοῦ ζῶντος, liv- 
ing God, either in opposition to idols which had no life, as in Acts 14: 
15. 1 Thess. 1:9. 1 Tim. 4: 10; or Ziving may mean immortal, eter- 
nal, as it does in Heb. 9: 14. 10:31. 12:22. 1 Pet. 1: 28, and often 
in the Old Testament. Thus perennial water is called ζῶν, John 4: 
11. 7: 38. So the commentators and lexicographers. Possibly, in 
these cases, ζῶν may mean the author or giver of life ; comp. John 6: 
51,57. 7:38. But I should think this exegesis not so probable as the 
other. 

The sense of the passage taken together is, ‘Beware, brethren, of an 
evil unbelieving heart, such as the Israelites possessed, lest like them 
you apostatize from the living God,’ lest you apostatize from the religion 
of Christ which he has required you to receive and maintain, and thus 
perish like ancient Israel who revolted from God. 

(13) Adda παρακαλεῖτε ἑαυτούς, but admonish one another. “Eav- 
τοί, in the New Testament and in the classics, is often used as the 
equivalent of ἀλλήλοιν; and so I understand it here. 

Kav ἑκάστην ἡμέραν, every day, i.e. constantly, habitually, ΕἸ π τ ΞΞΙ 
" Ayues οὗ τὸ σήμερον χαλεῖται, either [καιροῦ] οὗ κι τ. A, or οὗ may 
be an adverb of time, as in ν. 9th. Α'αλεῖται, like the Heb. δ, 
δὲ 02» is; see Wahl’s lexicon, and Gesenius on NP. The meaning 
is, ‘ Daily, while you have opportunity, admonish one another.’ In τὸ 
σήμερον, the article is joined (as it often is) with an adverb which ex- 
presses the sense of a noun; constructio ad sensum. 

“Zoe μὴ oxAnguvOy τις... ἁμαρτίας, so that no one may be hardened 
through sinful delusion. “Anuryn τῆς ἁμαρτίας means, the sinful delu- 
sion which false teachers or Judaizing zealots might occasion ; or that 

43 


338 HEBREWS III. 18—16. 


delusion into which they might be led by their oppressive condition 
arising from persecution, or by any allurements of a worldly nature; so 
that they would become insensible to the warnings which they had re- 
ceived, and might abandon their Christian profession. This would be 
a delusion indeed, and be highly sinful. Mutual and daily admonition, 
the apostle intimates, would tend to prevent this evil. 

(14) Meroyou γὰρ τοῦ Χριστοῦ γεγόναμεν, lit. for we are partakers 
of Christ. Some understand this as meaning, that we shall become 
partekers of the blessings which Christ bestows. JI understand by it a 
spiritual union with Christ, whereby we become partakers of all his 
blessings ; such a union as he describes in John 17 : 21—25, and other 
like passages, and which is so often designated by the expressions, ἕν 
κυρίῳ, ἐν Χριστῷ, ete. So Calvin; and Kuinoel says, very truly: 
Arctissima cum Christo conjunctio his formulis declaratur. 

"Eavneg τὴν ἀρχὴν... + κατάσχωμεν, if we hold fast unto the end 
our first confidence. Τὴν ἀρχὴν τῆς ὑποσεαδεὼς, 1.4. τὴν πρώτην 
πίστιν, 1 Tim. 5:12. The sentiment is, ‘Continue, even to the end 
of life, to exercise such confidence in Christ as you had at first, and 
you shall obtain the reward which he has promised ; see μέγρε τέλους, 
in v. 6 above. 

(15) Ἔν τῷ fang while it is said, 72 282 in Ps. 42: 4; comp. 
ὅταν εἴπῃ in 1 Cor. 15:27. The writer means to quote the passage 
in Ps. 95: 7, which he had already cited in v. 7 above. It makes the 
interpretation much easier to suppose (with Carpzoff, Rosenmueller, 
Heinrichs, Jaspis, Winer, and Kuinoel), that the quotation in this verse 
embraces merely the words o7jusgov .... ἀκούσητε; the rest of the 
verse being the exhortation of the writer himself, although expressed in 
the words of Ps. 95: 8, as in v.S above. The sense of the whole stands 
thus: ‘While you are warned against the dangers of sin, be not insen- 
sible to the warning, as the Jews of old were.’ Dr. Knapp and others 
have represented the whole of v. 15 as a direct quotation; but this 
embarrasses very much the interpretation of it. 

(16) Vives yoo ἀκούσαντες aagentzoatvav? So with Griesbach, 
Knapp, Titmann, Kuinoel, and others, { prefer to accent and punctu- 
ate this clause. The common editions have τινές (accented on the 
ultimate) meaning some, instead of τίνες the interrogative, meaning 
who? They also omit the interrogation point after nagaeaixoarvay. 
According to this last mode of exhibiting the text, it must be rendered 
(as in our English version), For some when they had heard did provoke : 
howbett not all that came out of Egypt by Moses ; which is altogether 


HEBReEws IIT. 16, 17. 339 


inapposite to the design of the apostle. The true rendering I take to 
be, Who now were they, that when they heard did provoke [the Lord 1] 
Or thus: Who then were they, etc.?. The design of this and the fol- 
lowing questions is, to lead the minds of the readers attentively to con- 
sider the specific sin, viz. unbelief, which occasioned the ruin of the 
ancient Israelites, and which would involve their posterity in the like 
condemnation. 

"AW οὐ πάντες... . ΠΙωύσέως, were they not all, indeed, who came 
out of Egypt by Moses? ° Addo in a series of questions, and standing 
at the head of a question, means, vero, porro; see Passow. It serves 
to connect, and to give intensity to the interrogation. So here; ἀλλα, 
truly, indeed, certe. ‘The meaning is: Might I not ask, Did not all 
who came out of Egypt rebel 7 He means to intimate by this, that the 
number who embrace error cannot sanction it; and that those who re- 
ceive great blessings, may be refractory and unfaithful, and even perish. 
Consequently, that the great body of the Jews rejected the Messiah 
during the time then present, and urged the Christian converts to do 
the same, would be no excuse for apostasy. J7avreg is not to be taken 
in the strict sense here, any more than in multitudes of other places; 
6. g. ‘all Judea went out to John to be baptized, confessing their sins, 
Matt. 3: 5, 6;’ ‘all men came to Jesus, to be baptized of him, John 3: 
26; Phil. 2:21. 2 Cor. 3:2; and so often. Of the adults, only Ca- 
leb and Joshua among the Israelites are excepted, as not having taken 
part in the murmurings against the Lord, Num. 14:30. Of course 
there could be no scruples in the apostle’s mind about applying the 
word πάντες in this case, just as it is applied in a multitude of others, 
viz. to designate great multitudes or the great majority. 

Ava Movoews, by Moses, means under his guidance, by his instru- 
mentality. The intimation seems to be this, viz., Were not even those 
Hebrews contumacious, who were delivered from bondage by Moses 
himself? 

(17) Ziow 02... . ἔτη, and with whom was he indignant for forty 
years? Above, in the quotation v. 10, forty years is connected with 
ἐδοχίμασαν μὲ. But the sense of the whole passage is not materially 
changed by the manner of expression in v. 17. It is true that the Isra- 
elites put the Lord to trial for forty years; and also true, that he ex- 
pressed his indignation against them during that time, until the genera- 
tion who had rebelled were destroyed. 

Οὐχὶ τοῖς ἁμαρτήσασι ; was it not with those who had sinned?  Er- 
nesti and Dindorf labour to shew that ἁμαρτάνω means the same here 


940 HEBREWS ΠῚ. 17—19. 


as ἀπειϑέω. inbubjdleds it saielided ae sin of nee but it is aun itself 
more generic than ἀπεύϑέω, and includes various sins of the Israelites, 
such as rebellion, murmurings, etc., the consequence of unbelief. 

Τὰ κῶλα, lit. members, such as arms, legs. It is here put, however, 
by synecdoche, for the whole body, and corresponds to the Hebrew 
D938, corpses, in Num. 14:29, 32; to which passages the apostle 
here refers. “/xsce in Greek, and the corresponding Hebrew 223, 
are both used to designate the prostrate condition of dead bodies, or 
falling down dead. 'The whole phrase may be thus paraphrased, ‘ Who 
perished in the desert.’ 

(18) Zioe δὲ ὥμοσε.... κατάπαυσιν αὐτοῦ; To whom did he swear 
that they should not enter into his rest, except to those who dishelieved 7 

In Num. 14: 23, 28—30, is an account of an oath on the part of Je- 
hovah, that the rebellious Israelites should not enter into éhe land, which 
he had sworn to their fathers should be given to them, i. e. in case they 
were obedient. In Deut. 1: 34, 35, there is another mention of a like 
oath, viz., that they should not enter into the goodly land pledged by 
oath to their fathers. But in neither case is the word rest employed. 
The reasoning of the apostle, however, in the chapter before us, would 
lead us to suppose, that the manner in which the unbelieving Jews 
were declared in the above passages to be excluded from the goodly 
land, and the reasons stated for that exclusion, necessarily implied ex- 
clusion from the heavenly Canaan also, or from the rest of God. 

(19) Kai βλέπομεν..... 00 ἀπιστίαν, we see then, or thus we sce, or 
and so we see, that they could not enter in because of unbelief. Kat, 
then, so, and so, in the apodosis of a sentence, or in a connected series 
of reasoning. See Wahl on καί, IL. 2, and panip: Gesen. Heb. Lex. 
on}, no. 5; come also καί in Matt. Te 19, καὶ λέγουσι, and so they 
say; 11: 29, καὶ εὑρήσετε, and so ye shall find; also in 15:6. 27: 
64, καὶ ἔσται, and so shall be ; Luke 11: 26, καὶ γίνεται, and so shall 
be; 1 Cor. 8: 11. 


HEBREWS LV. 341 


The writer having thus appealed, for the sake of warning, to the example and consequences of 
unbelief among the Israelites’of old in the wilderness, proceeds now further to confirm the applica- 
tion of what he had been saying to those whom he addressed, and to remove objections which 
might be raised against this application. Two objections, he seems to apprehend, might proba- 
bly be raised against the vse which he had made of the citation from the Old Testament: the one, 
that the rest there spoken of meant only a rest in the land of Canaan, or the quiet possession of 
the promised earthly inheritance; the other, that the ancient Israelites were excluded from the 
promised rest on account of murmuring and rebellion, crimes not charged upoa those whom the 
apostle addressed. The writer has deemed it expedient (and surely it was proper), that both of 
these objections to the use which he had made of the Old Testament Scripture should be removed, 
before he proceeded further with his main design. 

In 4: 1 he brings forward the assertion, that the promise of entering into the rest of God still re- 
mains, and is addressed to the Hebrew Christians as it was to the Israelites of old. Inv. 2 he pro- 
ceeds to repeat the idea, (for the sake of deeply impressing it), that blessings are announced to us 
(to Christians) in like manner as to the ancient Hebrews; and he now adds, that they failed to ob- 
tain the proffered blessings through unbelief. These declarations involve two propositions; the 
first, that the blessings in question must be of ἃ spiritual nature; the second, that unbelief is the 
cause of that sin which excludes from the enjoyment of them. The last of these propositions he 
does not formally labour to establish, as he does the other: because the evidence of it had already 
been exhibited ia the quotation which he had made, chap. 2:7—11; for it is there affirmed, that 
after all which the Israelites had seen of the works of God in the desert, they still tempted and 
provoked him, i. e. they gave no credit to all the testimonies which he had set before them, of his 
fidelity toward his promises and of his love and pity for them; nur did they believe his commina- 
tions against the disobedient. Consequently, they were excluded by this unbelief from his rest. 

But what is the vest in question? This of course involves the inquiry, whether the blessings in 
question are of a spiritual nature. Is it quiet possession of the land of Canaan? No, says the 
apostle. Believers now enter into the rest (v. 3), i. e. the same kind of rest as was anciently prof- 
fered. Moreover, God calls it κατάπαυσίν μου, MY rest, i.e. (adds he) cuch rest as God en- 
joyed after he had completed the creation of the world; consequently spiritual, heavenly rest. This 
is plain (as he goes on to shew in v. 4) from what the Scripture says, Gen. 2: 2, concerning the rest 
of God. Again, it is involved in the very form of expression in Ps. 95: 11, viz. MY rest v. 5. 

‘ Now,’ continues he (vy. 6),‘as some must enter into the rest in question,’ (for surely God 
would not provide and proffer a rest altogether in vain); ‘and since they to whom it was offered, 
lost it through wnbelief—fit follows that believers only can attain to it.]’ But this last idea the 
author has not expressed ina positive way. He has left the reader to supply it; as he may do 
without any difficulty, from what the writer had already said in vs. 2,3. The illustration and 
confirmation of this truth, is plainly one of the objects which the writer has in view, (as was stat- 
ed above); and while vs. 3—5 shew that the rest spoken of is of a heavenly nature ; the object of 
v. 6 is, to intimate that unbelief was the sin which excluded from it. 

But lest there might still be some doubt about the nature of the vest to which the ancient Scrip- 
tures refer, the writer resumes the topic respecting the nature of it, and adduces other considera- 
tions to shew that it must be spiritual and heavenly. 

* Moreover,’ says he (v. 7), ‘David himself, [who lived nearly five centuries after the land of 
promise had been occupied by the Israelites]—David speaks of a definite time then present, in 
which he warns his cotemporaries against losing the rest which God had promised to the believing 
and obedient ;’ [a rest of the same nature as that from which the [Israelites of old had been ex- 
cluded, as may be seen in Ps. 95].’ ‘ Now,’ (adds he), ‘ if Joshua, who gave Israel possession of 
the land of Canaan, had given them the rest to which the Scripture refers when it speaks of God's 
rest, then the Psalmist could not have spoken, so many centuries afterwards, of a rest that was 
still proffered to Israel, and from which the unbelieving would be excluded, v. 9.’ ‘Hence,’ he con- 
cludes, ‘ it is evident, since the rest which is spoken of is not of a temporal nature, but of a spirit- 
ual enduring nature, that there remains a rest for the people of God, i. e. believers.’ 

That the main object of the writer, in chap. 4: 1—9, is to prove the spiritual and abiding nature 
of the proffered rest, is stated so explicitly in v. 10, that there can be no reasonable doubt left in 
respect to his intention ; “ For,” says he, ‘‘ he who enters into his [God's] rest, rests from his own 
labours, as God did from his.” hat is, he who attains to the rest proffered to Israel in the time 


342 HEBREWS IV. 


of David, and to the more ancient Israelites in the wilderness, attains to a rest like that of God 
(described in Gen, 2: 2) ; i. e. he will rest from the toils, and trials, and sorrows of a probationary 
state, and enjoy a happiness heavenly and divine in a better world above. 

The writer then proceeds, in his usual manner, to close the topic by adding exhortations dili- 
gently to seek the rest in question, and awful warnings against incurring, by unbelief, the right- 


5 


eous indignation of that holy and omnipotent Judge, unto whom their account must be rendered, 
vs. 1I—13. 

In regard to the views of our author, relative to the subject of the rest which is proffered in the 
Old Testament to all who are believing and obedient, they doubtless differ very much from those of 
many commentators and critics of the present day, who are distinguished for their literary attain- 
ments. But it will not follow from this, that they are erroneous. Certain it is, that all the wri- 
ters of the New Testament had similar views, respecting the spiritual nature of some of the prom- 
ises contained in the Jewish Scriptures. I cannot therefore, with Kuinoel and others, regard the 
passage which we have just considered, as a mere accommodation (a somewhat forced one too) of 
promises and threatenings addressed to Israel of old, that had respect only to the land of Canaan ; 
nor asa mere fanciful application of things ancient, to the Hebrews whom our author is address- 
ing. I cannot help believing, at all events, that he regarded the rest spoken of in Ps. 95: 11 and 
Gen. 2:2,asa spiritual and heavenly rest. Consequently an appeal to the examples contained in 
the Old Testament, is more to the point, and more forcible, when thus understood, than it would 
be in any other mode of explaining the views and design of the writer, 

As to the mode of reasoning, in order to establish the positions which the writer has in view, 
it is quite different, indeed, from that to which we now resort, who have the whole of the New 
Testament in our hands, in which “life and immortality are brought [so fully] to light.’ We 
need to take but very little pains, in order to prove that promises of rest in a future world, prom- 
ises respecting a spiritual and heavenly country, are made to Christians. But we must remember , 
while we are labouring to understand the reasoning of Paul in the chapter before us, that the He- 
brews whom he addressed had no New Testament; for some of it was not yet written, and none 
of it had acquired a general circulation among Christian churches. This is the reason why Paul, 
in all his epistles, whenever he has occasion to quote Scripture, uniformly quotes the Old Testa~ 
ment only. How could he appeal to the New Testament, which was, when he wrote our epistle, 
only in a forming state, aud was not completed until after his death? Indeed, it was not embodi- 
ed in its present form, and generally circulated among the Christian churches, until nearly a cen- 
tury after the death of Paul. 

This may suffice to shew why Paul appeals to the Old Testament, and not to the New, when he 
designs to establish any thing from the sacred oracles. Every one, moreover, who believes with 
Paul, that the ἐς gospel has brought life and immortality to light,” will of course suppose it to be 
more difficuit, to establish promises of rest in a future world from the Old Testament than from 
the New. Hence he may be less forcibly struck with the argument of Paul, in Heb. IV., to prove 
a promise of future happiness to believers, than he will with many an argument which his own 
mind will supply from the New Testament. And with good reason. The New Testament does 
afford arguments far more explicit and convincing than the Old; and of course more powerful ar- 
guments than those which Paul deduces, in our chapter, from the Old. But this is no fault in the 
writer of our epistle. It is merely a result of the circumstances in which he and those whom he 
addressed, were placed. He had asserted, in writing to them, that a promise of the same nature 
was proffered to Christians, as was proffered to the ancient Israelites, 4: 1,2. The consequence 
he adduces from this is, that as unbelief with respect to this promise occasioned their ruin, so the 
like unbelief would now produce the like consequences. Nothing could be better adapted to his 
purpose, when writing to the Hebrews, than to produce an example of the consequences of unbe- 
lief, that was taken from their own progenitors, and recorded in their own Scriptures which 
they acknowledged as the word of God. To the New Testament he could not appeal, for it 
was not then intheir hands. To the Old Testament Scriptures, then, he chooses (and for the 
best of reasons) to make the appeal, in establishing the assertion he had made, that a promise of 
entering into the rest of God was still left ; that the proffered blessing was announced to Chris- 
tians in the same manner as to God’s ancient people, 4: 1,2; and that it would be conferred only 
on those who remained firm in their belief. 

The whole argument is, indeed, in some sense, argumentum ad hominem ; I mean, that it is ap_ 
propriate to the time and to the circumstances in which the apostle wrote, and to the people 


HEBREWS IV. lI. 343 


whom he addressed. But who can, with any propriety, make it a matter of accusation against the 
writer, that he consulted the good of those whom he addressed, by arguing with them in a manner 
that was most appropriate to their condition? Did not the Saviour constantly do the same? And 
ought we not to follow his example ? 

It is indeed true, that the views of the apostle, in respect to what is revealed in the Old Testa- 
ment concerning a future state, were plainly very different from those of many commentators and 
critics, who represent the Jews, God’s chosen people, and favoured too with the light of revelation, 
as more profoundly ignorant of the doctrine of immortality and of future rewards and punish- 
ments, than any of their heathen neighbours; a thing as improbable in itself, as it is contrary to 
the reasoning of the apostle on which I have been commenting. Nor is it at all necessary to 
maintain, with most of the recent commentators, that Paul allegorizes the rest of Canaan here, 
in such a way as to accommodate himself to the spirit of the age in which he lived, and the 
taste of the Jews who were his cotemporaries. So fay am I from embracing this view of the sub- 
ject, that I um quite persuaded he has designedly undertaken to shew, that the interpretation his 
cotemporaries put upon the passage which respects exclusion from the rest of God, was an erro- 
neous one. Plainly he labours to shew, that rest in the land of Canaan could NOT possibly have 
been meant by the Psalmist. Where then is the allegorizing of the apostle here, of which so much 
has been said? Whocan say confidently, against the reasoning and the decision of Paul, that the 
rest of which David spake, was not spiritual ? I content myself, whatever others may do, with 
the exegesis of the apostle; and do fully believe that he is inthe right. 

If he is correct in his views, then it follows, that the future punishment of the unbelieving Is- 
raelites is clearly intimated, by the exclusion from spiritual or heavenly rest which is threatened. 
This is a necessary inference from the reasoning and conclusions of the apostle. 


CHAP. IV. 


(1) Φοβηϑώμεν, let us beware, lit. leé us be afraid of. As fear, 
however, in its literal sense, is not applicable in this case, the exact 
shade of meaning is, caveamus, let us beware. 

Karahecnouerng ἐπαγγελίας, a promise being stillleft. Καταλείπω, 
according to both sacred and classic usage, may mean fo forsake, desert, 
neglect ; 6. σ. in Acts 6:2. 2 Pet. 2:15, et al. In this sense many 
critics have ἘΣ eee it, in the passage now in question. ‘The sense 
then would be, ‘ Let us beware, lest by neglect of the promise made to 
us, etc.’ But I much prefer the other sense of the word, i. e. to leave 
behind, and (passively) to be left behind, to remain, to be still extant ; 
e.g.in Acts 24:27. Luke 90: 31. Mark 12: 19, al., and especially 
comp. v. 9 below. The meaning then is, that the promise, which was 
implicitly made to believers among the ancient people of God, is still 
in being, and is made to us, i. 6. to Christians. This the next verse 
so directly asserts, as to render the interpretation just given nearly cer- 
tain. 

Boehme in commenting on v. 1 of this chapter, says: “ The author 
would fain persuade Christians that the admonition of the Psalm was 
addressed to them, so that, if they should harden their hearts by desert- 
ing the gospel, they could no more attain to divine rest than the con- 
tumacious Israelites did who perished in the desert; moreover, that 


344 neprews LV. 1. 


this rest was not an earthly one, as it might seem to be, (and as in truth 
it was), which was promised in the Pentateuch, but a heavenly sabbath or 
rest, which was the only appropriate rest for Christians. Our author, in 
order to effect such a persuasion, which was difficult, or rather per- 
verted in the extreme (vel contortissimam potius), etc.’ ‘This I pro- 
duce as a specimen of the manner in which Boehme frequently com- 
ments on our epistle. 

᾿Μηπαγγελίας, declaration, annunciation, promise, i.e. annunciation 
of the reward offered to the believing or faithful. 

Binnore... ὑστερηχέναι, lest...any one of you may fail of obtaiu- 
ing it. By sacred and classical usage, dozéw is frequently joined with 
other verbs, without making any essendial addition to the sense of them. 
It is said, therefore, to be used pleonastically ; by which, however, can 
be meant only, that it is incapable of being precisely rendered into our 
own language, and apparently adds nothing essential to the sense of a 
phrase. But even this is not exactly true of δοκέω. In many 
cases, it is plainly designed to soften the expression to which it is at- 
tached ; 6. g. 1 Cor. 7: 40, Paul says, doxo δὲ χαᾳγὼ πνεῦμα ϑεοῦ 
ἔχειν, 1 seem to myself to possess the spirit of God; a modest way of 
asserting the fact, instead of speaking categorically. In a similar way 
δοχέω is employed, in 1 Cor. 14:37. 10:12, 0 δοκῶν ἑστάναι, he 
who scems to himself to stand; 3:18. 4:9. In a few cases, it is dif- 
ficult to distinguish what addition is made to the phrase, by the use of 
δοκέω; 6. g. Luke 22: 24, τίς αὐτῶν δοκεῖ εἶναν μείζων, i. q. τίς εἴη. 
So Luke 8: 18, ὁ δοκεῖ ἔχειν, is expressed in Luke 19: 90 by ὁ ἔχεε; 
1 Cor. 11: 16, εἰ δέ τις δοχεῖ φιλόνεικος εἴναι. There can scarcely 
be a doubt, however, that in all cases the Greeks designed to give 
some colouring to a sentence by employing it. It would often seem to 
be something near to our may, might, can, could, etc., when used to 
soften forms of expression that might have been categorical. So Theo- 
phylact understood it,in our phrase. The words δοκεῖ reg ὑστερηκέναι 
he thus explains: “ Zoureore, μηπῶς ὑστερήσῃ, lest he may come 
short—and fail to enter into the promised rest. 'The writer uses ὦ mild 
and gentle address, not saying μὴ ὑστερήσῃ, but μὴ δοκῇ ὑστερηκέ. 
vat,’ Theophylact in loc. This, I apprehend, is hitting the exact 
force of the phrase here; an imperfect view of which is given in the 
lexicons. 

“EE ὑμῶν, in some manuscripts and fathers, ἡμῶν ; which would 
better accord with the usual χοίνωσιες of the writer; e.g. 1:1. 2: 1,3. 
3:1, 6,19, al. But it is not an unusual thing for Paul to change or 


HEBREWS [Υ.1, 2. 345 


intermingle different persons in the same passage ; 6. @. “Rea ἥδ 13 
Heb. 10: 24, 25 

᾿Ὑστερέω lit. means to come afterwards, to come late. In the sec- 
ondary sense it means, to fail, to come short of ; ashe must fail of ob- 
taining a thing, who comes too late for it. If the exhortation here be 
regarded as having a special reference to the time (σήμερον) when the 
offers of rest are made, μήποτε... ὑστερηκέναι may be rendered hap- 
pily, as in Wahl, lest... . ye come too late, i.e. after σήμερον. But I 
prefer the more simple method ; lest .... ye fail of obtaining the pro- 
mised blessing. 

(2) Kai yao ἐσμὲν εὐηγγελεσμένοι, for to us also the offer of bless- 
ings ts made, or we are evangelized, i. e. the promise of blessings is de- 
clared or made known to us, as well as to them. βυαγγελίξζω is used 
classically in the same sense, i. 6. to announce joyful tidings, to pro- 
claim proffered good. 'The “proffered blessing implied in the text, is 
the rest of which the writer had been speaking, and of which he con- 
tinues to speak. 

“ALN οὐκ ὠφέλησεν ὁ λόγος τῆς ἀκοῆς, but the promise or declara- 
tion which they heard, or which was proclaimed, was of no benefit to 
them. ὋὉ λόγος τῆς ἀκοῆς may be equivalent to ὁ ἀχουσϑεὶς λύγος, 
i. 6. the word heard by them ; or it may be like the Hebrew My ἜΞΊ, 
word of annunciation or report, i.e. word announced or reported. 
The sense is not materially changed, whichever of these interpretations 
is adopted. 

ΣΣυγκεχραμένος... «. ἀκούσασι, not being joined with fuith in them 
that heard tt, or not being united to faith, i. e. faith not accompanying 
it or associating with it. «Συγχεχραμένος is explained by many com- 
mentators, as being tropically employed here; and the metaphor, 
they allege, is taken from food, which when digested unites with the 
corporeal system and becomes aliment to it. So here, the word, if duly 
received, would have incorporated itself (so to speak) with the internal, 
spiritual man ; but as it was not received, it did not so incorporate it- 
self. But this is not so simple and easy a mode of explanation, as that 
given in the above translation. 

Many manuscripts and editions read ovyzexgauevous, and some 
συγκεχερασμένους ; which some critics and interpreters prefer. But 
it is difficult, if not impossible, to make any tolerable sense of these 
readings. ‘he common one is much preferable. 

Τοῖς wxovowor—equivalent here to the Gen. τῶν ἀκουσάντων. The 


meaning is, that the λόγος was not associated with the faith of those 
44 


940 uEBREWS LY, 2, 9. ; 


who heardit. The Hebrews usually designate possession by the Dative 
with >; 6. g. the Song of songs ΤῊΣ ὩΣ UR , which is Solomon’s. So 
frequently in Greek; e.g. of πατήρ his father, Pind. Olymp. 1:91. 
Neither do thy children [cot τέκνα] see the light, Eurip. Phoeniss. 
1563. Men are one χτημάτων τοῖς ϑεοῖς, of the possessions of the 
gods, Plato. Phaed. See Matt. Gr. Gramm. § 392. g. 1. et seq. In all 
such cases, there is an ellipsis of a pronoun relating to the object pos- 
sessed, and of the verb of existence which governs the Dative when it 
signifies possession or property ; e.g. κτημάτων [ἃ ἐστι] τοῖς Deore. 

The sense of the whole verse is simply this; ‘ A promise of rest is 
made to Christians now, as well as to God’s ancient people. But they 
received no advantage from it, because of unbelief;’ the implication is, 
φοβηϑῶμεν (as he had just said) μ9) τὲς δοκῇ x. t. 2, i.e. guard well 
then against unbelief. 

(3) Eicsozoueda yao... . πιστεύσαντες, for we who believe do en- 
ter into the rest, viz. God’s rest. The γάρ here and in ν. 2, I regard as 
yao illustrantis. By changing the form of the propositions a little, the 
connection will be quite apparent. First he says: “Let us beware lest 
we should fail of attaining to the rest which is promised.’ ‘Then he 
proceeds: ‘ [This we may do], for (yao) we have the like invitation with 
them, and they failed of the promise through unbelief’ Again: ἡ (‘This 
we may do] for (yag) it is only those who remain believers, that enter into 
God’s rest. The γάρ at the beginning of v. 4, has respect to the illus- 
tration of v. 3 by the quotations that follow. If the reader will consult 
the admirable lexicons of Passow and Bretschneider on the word γάρ, 
he will there see abundance of proof that γάρ is often employed after 
something that is to be mentally supplied from the tenor and object of 
the discourse. 

Fiseoyoued«, in the present tense, appears to have created difficulty 
in the minds of some critics, who have changed it into εἰσελευσόμεθα 
(Fut. tense). But how needless this change is, every one conversant 
with the idiom of the Bible may easily judge; in which the present 
tense is very often used as a universal tense, embracing time past, 
present, and future. In Hebrew, it is very common to use the present 
participle for the same purposes as the Latins use their future in rus: 

Kodo εἴρηκεν" x. τ. 4, that is, a.solemn asseveration that ube- 
lievers should not enter into his rest, implies of course that believers 
should enter into it. See on3:11. So Calvin: Argumentum est a 
contrariis. Sola incredulitas arcet; ergo fide patet ingressus, 

Καίτοι τῶν ἔργων... .. γενηϑέντων, to wit, or namely, [rest from] 


HEBREWS LV. 9. 347 


the works that were done when the world was founded. Keaivor is apar- 
ticle, the meaning of which has been much controverted here. There 
is no doubt that it often has the meaning of although, which our Eng- 
lish version has here given to it. But I am unable to make any sense 
of the passage under consideration, if za/zoe here be thus translated. 
Nor does καίτοι seem originally to mean, although. Its principal sig- 
nification is, ef quidem, et sane. So Xenophon (Cyrop. 111.}, καίτοι, 
εἴτε ἐχείνους μὲν φοβερωτέρους ποιήσομεν x. τ. A, and truly if we shall 
make them somewhat more timid etc. Thucyd. IV. 60, καίτοι γνῶναι 
yon κ΄ τ. A, and truly we ought to know. Aristoph. Plut. 1179, καίτου 
τοτὲ ὅτε εἶχον οὐδέν, and indeed then ‘when they possessed nothing. 
“* Adhibetur,” says Hoogeveen, “cum sequitur aliquid nova attentione 
dignum ;” and again, “‘ Quartus usus est, δὲ dictum ezemplo confirma- 
tur,” (Hoog. Doctrina Part. Graec. ed. Schutz, vocab. καίτοι), which is 
the very case in question. For here the writer gives the example of 
God’s rest after the creation, in order to explain what is the meaning of 
my rest. I have given the sense by rendering χαίτοι to wit, or namely, 
which is equivalent in many cases to et quidem, et sane. So Devarius 
(de Partic. Ling. Graec.) explains καίτοι; and after him Carpzoff, 
(Comm..in loc. nostrum). The latter says, “ Devarius evicit eam (καί- 
104) simpliciter ad exponendam aliquam sententiam poni.’ So Kypke 
and Kuinoel, nempe, et quidem tdque. ‘The sense will be substantially 
the same, if καίτοι be rendered and truly, and indeed; but the other 
mode of translating is more explicit, and makes the connection more 
facile. 

Kuinoel solves the difficulty of the last clause in this verse, by sup- 
plying εἴρηκε. He construes thus: “ And this (καὶ roe) [he said], the 
works being completed,” etc. This comes substantially to the same 
sense which I have given above. But I think it more simple to supply 
the ellipsis from the preceding expression and from vs. 4 and 10, viz. 
καταάπαυσεν ἀπὸ 3 as We shall see in the next paragraph. 

Lav ἔργων, [rest from] the works. That κατάπαυσιν is here to be 
understood before ἔργων, seems to be clear from vs. 4 and 10, where 
the same sentiment is repeated. The ellipsis may be either [xazan- 
uvowr] τῶν ἔργων, or [κατάπαυσιν ano] τῶν évywr; more probably 
the latter, for ἀπό is supplied after the verb κατέπαυσε, both in vs. 4 
and 10. 4:0, however, is not absolutely necessary here, as nothing is 
more common than for the Gen. case, without any preposition, to mean 
in respect to, in regard to; e.g. ἐγγύτατα αὐτῷ εἶμι γένους, I am very 
nearly allied to him 1N REGARD TO descent; ἄπαις ἀῤῥένων παίδων, 


εν 


348 HEBREWS IV. 3—5. 


childless 1X REGARD TO males; see Buttmann’s Gramm. § 132. 6. 1. 
Matthiae, ὃ 315. 

"Ano καταβολῆς κόσμου γενηϑέντων, done, i.e. completed or per- 
formed, when the world was founded. °Ano καταβολῆς, at or from 
the foundation, i.e. at the beginning; in a sense like ἀπὸ ἀρχῆς, at 
first, in Matt. 19: 4; and in Luke 13: 25, ay οὗ means, when. Jo- 
sephus uses καταβολὴ for beginning; e.g. Lib. IL. 17, Bell. Jud. he 
says: “This was χαταβολὴ πολέμου, the beginning of the war,” viz. 
with the Romans. The sense of the passage requires ἀπὸ καταβολῆς 
to be rendered ‘at the time of the beginning, i.e. when the beginning 
was;’ just as we say in English, from the first, i.e. at the very com- 
mencement. 

(4) The writer now proceeds to cite a passage of Scripture, in order 
to shew what sort of rest is designated by the phrase my rest. In order 
to do this, he adverts to that Scripture which shews the rest that God 
enjoyed after the work of creation was finished. Ζίρηχε γάρ, for [the 
Scripture] says, or [the Holy Ghost] says; a frequent mode of appeal- 
ing to the Old ‘Testament. 

“Πού, in a certain place or passage. Chapter and verse are no where 
cited in the New Testament; and very rarely is any particular book 
named, unless indeed it bears the same name as its author. An appeal 
to Scripture, by merely saying πού, shews that the writer must have 
supposed his readers to be familiar with the contents of the Jewish 
Scriptures. The passage cited may be found in Gen. 2:2. So Clem- 
ent of Rome appeals to Scripture, now saying λέγει mov, and then λέγει 
που γραφεῖον. ι 

Κατέπαυσεν ὁ Geos. The rest here spoken of, is of course to be 
considered as described ἀνθοωποποϑῶς, 1. 6. in accommodation to the 
capacities of men. It surely does not imply that God was wearied by 
his work of creation; but that he simply ceased from it, and enjoyed a 
holy and delightful quiet, in the pleasing contemplation of the works 
which had been accomplished. Comp. Gen. 1: 4, 10, 18, 25, 31. 

(5) Such then was the rest of God, of which the Scripture speaks. 
To such rest, the apostle says, the writer of the 95th Psalm refers. Δ αἱ 
ἐν τούτῳ πάλιν, again in this passage also, viz. in the passage which 
he had already quoted from Ps. 95: 11, i.e. the passage which he is 
now going to mention, the Scripture represents God as saying, My resé, 
i.e. such rest as I have, or such as I enjoy. In other words, both Gen. 
2:2and Ps. 95: 11, speak of a holy and spiritual rest, since they 


speak of a rest which God himself enjoys. Comp. πάλεν here, as to 
position, with wader in 1: 6. 


HEBREWS IV. 6, 7. 349 


(6) “Enet οὖν ἀπολείπεται... Ov ἀπείϑειαν, since then it remains 
that some must cnter into that [rest], and [since] they to whom the 
blessings were proffcred, did not enter in because of unbelief ; [it fol- 
lows that believers only can enter in], comp. v. 3; or rather, [it follows 
that a rest remains for believers], comp. v. 9. 

This verse seems to be a resumption of the subject in v. 3, after the 
the explanations of rest which vs. 4 and 5 contain. There the writer 
says, ‘ Believers enter into the rest of God.’ How is this proved? ‘ Be- 
cause he has sworn that unbelievers shall not enter into it ;’ which ne- 
cessarily implies that believers shall enter into it. ‘Then, after delaying 
a moment in order to shew what the nature of the rest in question is, 
viz. that it is God’s rest, i.e. such rest as God enjoyed after the work 
of creation was completed (vs. 3—5), the author resumes the consider- 
ation of the proposition advanced in the first part of v. 3, and avers, that 
as some must enter into God’s rest (for God could not be supposed to 
have provided one in vain), and as unbelievers cannot enter in, so it is 
necessarily implied, that believers, and they only, will enjoy the rest in 
question. See the illustration of the reasoning prefixed to the present 
chapter, in the preceding pages. 

Others construe the verse in this manner: ‘ Since then some must 
enter into his rest, and unbelievers of former days did not enter in; 
therefore he defines again (παάλεν) a particular day, ete ; construing 
vs. 6 and 7 as one connected sentence. But this makes the sentence 
very much involved, and obscures the design of the writer. His object 
certainly is, to shew that the rest proffered in ancient times, in the 95th 
Psalm, still remains for the people of God; see vs. 9, 10. But how can 
this be proved, by merely shewing that David spake of a definite time 
when he wrote the 95th Psalm, in which the offer of rest was then 
made? On the other hand, I understand it to be the particular object 
of the writer in v. 7, seq., to exhibit further proof that the proffered rest 
is of a spiritual nature, and therefore not to be limited by assigning to 
it a merely temporal sense. See the illustration referred to above. If 
any one is desirous of seeing what conjecture can make out of this 
verse, let him read the commentary of Kuinoel upon it. 

(7) Παλεν τινὰ ὁρίζει ἡμέραν... καρδίας ὑμῶν, again, when 
speaking by David so long a time afterwards, he designates, or defi- 
nitely names, a certain day, To-pay ; as it is said, “ To-day, if ye will 
hear his voice, harden not your hearts.” See above on chap. 8: 7, 8, 
particularly 3: 15. The sentiment runs thus: ‘In David’s time, near- 
ly 500 years after unbelievers in the wilderness were threatened with 


350 HEBREWS LV. 7—9. 


exclusion from the promised inheritance, the Psalmist makes use of the 
commination which has been quoted, in order to deter those whom he 
addressed from hardening their hearts as the ancient Israelites did, and 
so losing the rest (as they did) which God had proffered to the obedient 
and believing. The rest, then, could not be merely the land of Canaan, 
(as the Jews of Paul’s time understood it to be), for this both believers 
and unbelievers, living in the time of the Psalmist, already enjoyed. 
Consequently the rest spoken of by the Psalmist, was of a spiritual na- 
ture, pertaining only to believers.’ All this is plainly implied ; and in 
the next verse it is explicitly declared. : 

(8) Zi yao αὐεοὺς ‘noous.... ἡμέρας, now if Joshua had given 
them rest, i.e. the rest of God concerning which the Scripture speaks, he 
[David, or the Spirit of God by him] would not have spoken afterwards 
of another time, viz. another time when rest was to be given or to be 
obtained. That is, ‘If the rest of God be only the rest of Israel in 
Canaan, or the quiet possession of the promised land, then the Psalmist 
could not have spoken of it as still proffered in his time, after it had 
been in fact given to Israel by Joshua nearly five centuries before. The 
other time (ἄλλης ἡμέρας) here spoken of, is the same which is desig- 
nated by the word σήμερον in the quotation ; which implies a time 
different from that, and subsequent to that, in which the Israelites ob- 
tained the rest of Canaan. 

That ‘/yoovg means Joshua here, there can be no doubt; for the 
object of the writer is to prove, that Jesus does bestow the rest spoken 
of, viz. that which the ’/jo0v¢ here named did not bestow. Katénav- 
σὲ, caused to rest, exactly as the Hiphil conj. in Hebrew is used; 6. g. 
277 (from 1792) in Deut. 12: 10, in the same sense as κατέπαυσε here. 
In the classics this verb has the like sense, viz. Diod. Sic. p. 716. A. 
Arrian, Exp. Al. Il. 9. Herod. I. 27. Hom. Iliad. XV. 105. 

(9) ” Aon ἀπολείπεται... τοῦ ϑεοῦ, consequently there remaineth a 
rest for the people of God, i. 6. for believers, see v.3. Here the object 
of the preceding argument is plainly developed; so plainly, that we are 
not left at liberty to doubt concerning it. Here is fully expressed, what 
is plainly zmplied in v. 6, although in an elliptical manner, as has been 
already noticed. Such a manner is not unfrequent with Paul. Comp. 
Rom. 5: 12 with 5: 18, 19; and see ὃ 22. 3. of the Introduction above. 

SufParcopos, (Heb. nav, Nsw, rest, sabbatism), holy, religious, 
spiritual rest. Σαββατισμὸς is a mere Hebrew word with a Greek 
ending; and it is here employed as equivalent to xatasavoes, but with 


Θ᾽ 


special reference to the Heb. expression naw? (from ὨΞ) in Gen. 2: 


HEBREWS LV. 9---Τ|. 90] 


2, which there describes the rest of God. The Heb. Ξ is a kind of 
intensive noun, formed from N2W, and means sabbath by way of emi- 
nence. Σαββατισμός, which stands for jin2W, seems to be a word 
coined by the writer purposely for the occasion, and is very appropriate 
to his design. 

That believers do enter into the rest of God, i. 6. a rest like his, is 
further shewn by the next verse. 

(10) ‘O yao εἰσελϑῶν.. .. 0 ϑεός, for he who enters into his [God’s] 
rest, will also cease from his own labours, as God did from his. As 
God ceased from his work on the seventh day, and enjoyed holy de- 
light in the contemplation of what he had done, (see on verse 4 above), 
so the believer, in a future world, will cease from all his toils and suffer- 
ings here, and look back with holy delight on the struggles through 
which he has passed, and the labours which he has performed, for the 
sake of the Christian cause. In other words, *‘ As God enjoys a most 
pure and perfect rest or happiness in heaven, so the believer will enjoy 
the like happiness there.’ And surely there is no more difficulty in 
calling that rest which is promised to believers, the rest of God, than 
there is in saying that man “ was formed in his image,” that Christians 
“are made partakers of the divine nature,” or that “we shall be like 
him when we shall see him as he 15. The rest of God, is rest like 
that which God enjoys. And it deserves to be noticed, that the writer, 
in order to illustrate the nature of this rest, has chosen the description 
of it as following the work of creation, in order to make a comparison 
between it and that rest which believers will have, when all their toils 
and sufferings are ended. ‘This was well adapted to take hold of the 
minds of those to whom he was writing, and who were exposed to many 
hardships and trials. Having now shewn that there is a promise of 
spiritual rest to believers, implied in what the Jewish Scriptures say, the 
apostle repeats the caution, which lay so near his heart, against unbe- 
lief in the Saviour and the consequences of it. 

(11) Snovdaommer ovv.... ἀπειϑείας, let us earnestly endeavour, 
then, to enter into that rest [the rest of God], lest any one should perish 
in the same manner through unbelief. “Lv τῷ αὐτῷ ὑποδείγματε, lit. 
after the same example, in the same manner, viz. as they (the Israelites) 
perished. Jl¢oy is often used in this way, in an intransitive sense. 
" dnsiVeiag I take to be the Gen. of means, instrument, etc., as gram- 
marians say. 

The awful nature of the commination, that unbelievers should not 
enter into the rest of God, the writer now describes, in order to leave a 


90. HEBREWS LV. 12. 


deep impression on the minds of his readers, and to guard them more 
effectually against unbelief and apostasy. 

(12) Zav yao... . ἐνεργής, lit. for the declaration of God is active 
and of a mighty power, or ts enduring and powerful, i.e. has an effi- 
ciency that never ceases. ‘The meaning according to the latter inter- 
pretation is, that the commination (comp. Is. 9: 8) uttered in ancient 
days against unbelievers, (and which had been repeated above by the 
writer), has abated nothing from its force or efficacy, even at the pres- 
ent time ; it still lives, and unbelievers are still subject to its power. In 
defence of this interpretation, it might be said that ζῶν is applied here 
to the divine word, i. 6. commination, in a manner like that in which it 
is applied to God in the phrase ὅπ ὃν (ϑεὸς Cov) often used in the 
Scriptures, which designates him as eternal, immortal, never dying, en- 
dowed with unfailing life, in opposition to idols destitute of a living 
principle, and made of perishable materials. It is evident, too, that the 
sense of perpetual or perennial, may be considered as appropriate to the 
passage before us. But others interpret ζῶν as meaning active, a sense 
which is common to this word and to the Hebrew "7. I understand 
both terms as conveying the idea of active and mighty energy ; which 
is altogether appropriate to the writer's purpose, whose object it is to 
persuade his hearers, that the commination uttered against the unbe- 
lievers of former days and which is still in force, has a dreadful power 
at which they ought to shudder. 

Kai rouwtegog .... δίστομον, and sharper than any two-cdged 
sword, i. 6. it has a more efficient power to inflict wounds than a sword 
with two edges. ‘The efficacy of divine commination is often compared 
to a sharp sword ; 6. g. the Son of man is represented by John as hav- 
ing, when he appeared to him in a vision, a sharp two-edged sword 
issuing from his mouth, i.e. his words cut as it were like a sharp sword, 
or his reproof, commination, wounded deeply, Rev. 1: 16. 2: 12, 16. 
19: 15, 21. Comp. also Is. 49: 2. 11: 4, in which last passage the ex- 
pression is, with the rod of his mouth, and in the parallel στίχος, with 
the breath of his lips [with his words] shall he slay the wicked. Lan- 
guage then of reproof, of severe threats or commination, or of condem- 
nation, is by the sacred writers called the sword or rod of the mouth. 
So in our verse, the divine commination is represented as terribly efti- 
cacious, by resorting to the same species of imagery in order to make a 
comparison. 

Καὶ dvizvovpevos .... πνεύματος. The writer continues the de- 
scription of the efficacy of the divine threatening, by carrying on still 


HEBREWs IV. 12. 303 


further the description of the effects produced by a sharp sword upon 
the natural body ; piercing even so as to separate life and spirit. Duyn, 
when used as here in distinction from πνεῦμα, means the animal soul 
or principle of animal life in man ; as πνεῦμα in such ἃ case means the 
rational or intellectual soul, the immaterial principle within man. See 
1 Thess. 5: 23, where σῶμα is added in order to designate the merely 
physical or corporeal part of the human system. In the phrase under 
consideration, piercing so as to divide, or separate, life and spirit, 
plainly means inflicting a wound so deep as shall prove deadly; fo 

that which separates the soul from the system endowed with animal life, 
is of course deadly. We may paraphrase both expressions thus: a 
sharp sword that inflicts deadly wounds. 

‘Aouoy τὲ καὶ μυελῶν, [piercing so as to divide] joints and marrow, 
i.e. So as to divide the joints or limbs from the body, (which was often 
done in the severer kinds of punishment); and so as to pierce through 
the very bone to the marrow, or to separate the marrow from the bone, 
by perforating it; a tremendous image of the sharpness of the sword 
and the effects it produces. The sense is, that the divine commination 
is of most deadly punitive efficacy. After μυελῶν a colon should be 
placed. 

Καὶ xoutixos... . καρδίας, he also judges [takes cognisance of] the 
desires and purposes of the heart, i. e. ϑεὸς κριτικὸς ἐστι. That χρίτι- 
x0¢, aptus ad judicandum, here applies to God, and not to λόγος, seems 
evident. That there is somewhere here a transition to #¢0¢, is quite 
certain from v. 13, where ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ, οφϑαλμοῖς αὐτοῦ, and πρὸς 
Ov, one cannot well doubt, are to be applied ἰο God. The nature of the 
case seems to shew, that the appropriate place for this transition is at 
καὶ κριτικός. In the preceding part of the verse, λόγος ϑεοῦ, divine 
commination, is represented (very forcibly and properly) as punitive. 
This idea is consummated by the phrase which ends with μυελῶν ; and 
as ϑεὸς comes in as the subject of discourse in the sequel, (at least in 
v. 13), I see no place so apposite for its introduction as at καὶ x@erexos. 
Indeed there can be no other, for unless it comes in here, we must car- 
ry λόγος ϑεοῦ through the whole paragraph, as the subject; which does 
not seem to be the design of the writer. In this view of the passage, 
Dindorf, Kuinoel, and Bloomfield agree. 

God is here represented as one who scans the whole of man’s inter- 
nal character, and sits in judgment upon it. Consequently, as the wri- 
ter intimates, no secret act or purposes of unbelief, or defection from 
the Christian cause, will remain unnoticed or unpunished. “Hv Ovunocs 

45—4 


904 HEBREWS LV. 12, 13. 


and ἔννοια are nearly allied in meaning. They are both employed 
here, merely for the purpose of designating universality, i. e. the whole 
of men’s internal thoughts and purposes. 

(13) Kai οὐκ ἔστι... αὐτοῦ, yea nothing is, or nor is there any 
thing, concealed from the view of him [i. 6. God]. Atiovg means any 
created thing ; literally act of creation, but it follows the Hebrew N73. 
Οὐ κείσις means nothing (53 N>=ovdev) or FN7F2 ND. 

Πάντα. ... τετραχηλισμένα, but all things are naked and exposed to 
the view of him, to whom we are accountable. Toauyniifo is best ex- 
plained here, in the sense which the Greek classical writers attach to 
it. It means, (1) To lay bare and bend back the neck, so as to expose 
the throat in order to its being cut open or dissevered. Hence, (2) To 
expose, to lay open; which is the idea of the word in the phrase before 
us, as it is given in the translation above. ᾿Οῳϑαλμοῖς, eyes, i. 6. sight, 
view, cognizance ; for the word is often used in this sense. 

_ TIg0g ὃν ἡμῖν οἱ λόγος, lit. with whom [1. 6. before whom, in whose 
power, or at whose disposal] is our account. The sense of account, 
λόγος often has. The common way of rendering λόγος here, is, con- 
cern, dealing, business. 'This sense the word will bear ; but it is less in 
conformity to the wsus loquendi, and less apposite to the design of the 
writer. Chrysostom understands it as I have translated it. And so the 
preceding clause requires it to be rendered ; for this speaks of God, (or 
λόγος if you please), as κριτικός, 1. 6. judicans, aptus ad judicandum ; 
the clause now under consideration, represents men as actually ac- 
countable to him who is the omniscient judge. 


CONTENTS OF HEBREWS V—X. 18. 355 


The writer now proceeds tu the consideration of a subject, at which he had merely hinted 
in chap. 3:1; where he calls Christ the ἀρ χιερέα of the Christian religion. As ἀπόστολος 
(9285 rindw), pracfectus domo Dei, he had already compared him with Moses, 3:2—6; and 
then built upon the result of this comparison, the very solemn and affectionate warning against 
unbelief which follows,3:7—19. For the encouragement of the Hebrew Christians, he had also 
taken occasion, (after having spoken of unbelievers as excluded from the rest of God), to represent 
the promises still held out to believers of enjoying that rest. Such was the case under the ancient 
dispensation, and such, he argues, is still the case; there remains a σαββατισιιός for the people 
of God.’ He then,as we have seen, concludes the subject, as usual, with an exhortation ; in 
which he calls on them not to fail of this rest, 4: 11, nor to incur the awful penalty attached to 
unbelief, 4: 11—13. ; 

Having thus completed the comparison of Christ as ἀπόστολος with Moses, and drawn from 
the result of it those practical deductions at which our epistle every where aims; the writer now 
proceeds to compare Christ as ἀρχιερεύς, with the Levitical order of priesthood ; which compari- 
son, With its various subordinate parts, and the occasional warnings and comminations that now 
and then are intermixed, extends to chap. 10:18; whichis the end of what may be called the 
doctrinal part of our epistle. 

The mind of the writer plainly appears to have been more intensely engaged with comparing 
Christ's priesthood to that of Aaron and the Levites, than with any other subject in his epistle. 
The comparison, for example, of Christ with the angels, in chap. I., is short; the comparison of 
him with Moses, in chap. IIL., still shorter. But the comparison of the Aaronical priesthood, as 
to dignity, duties, offices, and utility, with that of Christ, and of their functions with his, makes 
up, in fact, the body of our epistle. It is natural to inquire, why this should be so; and the obvi- 
ous answer seems to be, Because the writer regarded this part of the Saviour’s office and work, as 
being in acomparative sense by far the most important. Asa priest, he made atonement for sin 
by the sacrifice of himself; in regard to which, no angel, no prophet, no teasher, no Aaronical 
priest, could bear a comparison with him. The most prominent part of all his character, as a Sa- 
viour of sinners, is, that he is ‘ the Lamb of God which taketh away the sins of the world.” 

The division of chapters made in some cases in our epistle, is quite inappropriate. Chap. IIL 
most plainly ought to be united with Chap. 4: 1—13; thus comprising all that properly belongs to 
one and the same subject. Chap. LV. ought to begin at 4: 14, and to terminate with the end of 
chap. V., where there is a transition from doctrine to exhortation. 

In regard to the course and method of argument pursued through this leading portion of our 
epistle, (viz. from 4: 14 to 10: 18), in which a comparison between the Aaronical priesthood and 
that of Christ is made, and where all that is connected with the office and person and duty of 
priests is also drawn into the comparison, it seems to me that the course of thought is capable of 
being intelligibly stated; and I shall now venture upon the experiment. 

The apostle introduces the topic, (to which he had adverted in 3:1 by calling Christ the 
ἀρχιερέα τῆς ὁμολογίας ἡμῶν), by calling Jesus ἀρχιερέα μέγαν, and exhorting the Hebrews 
to hold fast the profession (ὁμολογίας) which they had made, 4:14. He again hints, very brief- 
ly, an encouragement for them to persevere, although subjected to trials and afflictions, because of 
of the sympathy that the Saviour would feel for them, as having possessed a nature like theirs ex- 
posed to trial and suffering, 4: 15, 16. But as he had already dwelt at large on this topic (2: 
6—18), he merely adverts to it here, and passes on to suggest the points of comparison between the 
Levitical priesthood and that of Christ, 

(1) Every priest is appointed in behalf of men, in order that he may superintend and direct 
the concerns which men have with God, and may present their oblations and sacrifices before him, 
5.11. 

(2) Every priest, being himself ‘‘ compassed with infirmity,” is prepared by his own experience 
to sympathize with others in like condition; and because of his own sins and imperfections, it be- 
comes his duty to offer expiatory sactifices for himself as well as for them, 5 : 2, 3. 

(3) No priest appoints himself to the sacred office; his appointment is by divine direction, 5: 4, 


356 CONTENTS OF HEBREWs V—X. 18. 


In making a comparison of Christ, as high priest, with the Aaronical priests, in regard to the 
points here stated, the apostle inverts the order in which they are brought forward, and shews, 

(1) That Christ was constituted high priest by divine appointment. This he proves, in vs. 0, 6, 
by quotations from the second Psalm and from Ps. 110: 4. 

(2) He then passes to the second topic of comparison, viz., the infirmity of the nature which 
Christ our great high priest possessed, and which qualified him in a peculiar manner to sympathize 
with the infirmities of his people. He represents Christ as having, during his incarnate state, ut- 
tered vehement supplications on account of his trials and distresses, and as experiencing, like oth- 
er men, deliverance from them, 5:7. Even though he was clothed with the dignity of the Son of 
God, he acquired a practical knowledge of what it is to obey in the midst of sufferings, 5: 8. Thus 
he was fitted μετριογεγαϑεῖν τοῖς ἀγνοοῦσι" and having thus obeyed and suffered, in conse- 
quence thereof he was exalted to glory (τελειωϑείς), where, as kingly high priest after the order 
of Melchizedek, he is an all-sufficient Saviour to those who believe and obey him, 5: 9, 10. 

As one of the proofs that Christ was exalted to be an all-sufficient Saviour, the writer has again 
(v. 10) produced the passage, which asserts him to be a priest forever after the order of Melchize- 
dek, i.e. a kingly priest whose office is not of limited extent or temporary duration. But having 
thus introduced a topic attended with difficulty, and demanding an enlightened knowledge of the 
Scriptures and of the nature of Christianity in order to be rightly and fully comprehended, the 
apostle stops short in the prosecution of his subject, in order to admonish those whom be was ad- 
dressing, with regard to the little progress which they had made in such knowledge as would ren- 
der them adequate fully to comprehend the discussion concerning the topic in question, in which 
he was about to engage. His reproof for their comparative ignerance, he pursues through 5; 11— 
14. In 6: 1—8, he warns them against the awful danger which would result from stopping short 
or turning back in their course, in order that he might thus excite them to more diligence and ex- 
ertion respecting religious improvement. Notwithstanding the seeming severity of his remarks in 
regard to this topic, he assures them that he has an affectionate confidence in their good estate, 
6:9; and this, because God will have regard to the benevolent character which they had before 
exhibited, 6: 10. He then exhorts them to press forward in their Christian course, 6: 11; and as- 
sures them, that the promise and oath of God are pledged, that believers who persevere shall at- 
tain to salvation, 6: 13—19. 

After this digression, (if that may be called digression which is so directly concerned with the 
main object of the writer), he proceeds to descant upon the topic of Christ’s priesthood, as in- 
stituted by God and compared with that of Melchizedek, which had been brought to view by the 
text of Scripture cited, in 5:6, 10. 

In order to do this so as to make a strong impression, he begins by giving an account of the dig- 
nity of Melchizedek. He was king of Salem, and priest of the most high God; his superiority 
was acknowledged by Abraham, when he paid him a tithe of the spoils which he had taken, 
7: 1,2. The same Melchizedek was not descended from priests, (and therefore his office did 
not fall to him by the mere right of succession, but was by the special appointment of God) ; 
he has no genealogy assigned him in the sacred writings, nor any limited term mentioned in 
which his priesthood began or expired ; like Christ’s priesthood, his is unlimited, 7: 3. Abra- 
ham himself, exalted as this patriarch was, acknowledged the superiority of Melchizedek; and 
the Levitical priests descended from him did as it were acknowledge the same, by their progeni- 
tor who paid this homage, and to whom they must be counted inferior, 7:4—7. Besides, the 
Levitical priests who receive tithes, hold their office only for a limited duration; while ΜΕ]. 
chizedek is a priest for an unlimited time, 7: 8. Indeed, (if one may venture so to express 
himself), the Levites)themselves paid tithes to Melchizedek, through Abraham their progenitor, 
Ts 900s ὶ 

Thus much for the superiority of Melehizedek over the Levitical priests. The conclusion in 
this case is left to be supplied by the reader’s mind, after the manner in which Paul often writes. 
The reasoning is thus: ‘Christ is a priest after the order of Melchizedek; Melchizedek is su- 
perior to the Aaronical priests; consequently, Christ as a priest is superior to them.’ 

The writer next proceeds to another topic of great importance, and which very naturally con- 
nected itself with the consideration of Christ’s priesthood, as compared with that of Melchize- 
dek. If, says he, the Levitical priesthood was adequate for all the purposes of atonement, and 
for the purification of the consciences of sinners, then what necessity that the appointment of 


CONTENTS OF HEBREWS V—X. 18. 357 


another priest should be made, as is predicted in Ps. 110: 4. 7:11. Now another order of priest- 
hood necessarily demands a change of former laws respecting the priesthood, 7; 12; and that an- 
other order is introduced, follows from the fact that Christ (the priest after the new order) was 
to spring from the tribe of Juduh, 7:13. Still more evident must it be, that the order would be 
different, because the new priestly office is to be perpetual, 7: 15—17. Consequently, the old order 
of things gives place to a new and better one, 7: 18, 19. 

Besides, the new priest is appointed by the solemnity of an oath, while the Aaronical priests 
were not, 7:2; consequently, we must suppose the new order of things to be superior, 7: 22. 
This superiority appears specially in the fact that the priesthood of Christ is perpetual in his own 
person; while that of the Levites was constantly changing by succession, 7: 23, 24. Christ, there- 
fore, is an adequate and never-failing helper to all who come unto God through him, 7 : 25. 

It is thus that the apostle illustrates, enlarges, and confirms his views respecting the subject intro- 
duced in 5: 6, 10, by a quotation from Ps. 110: 4, respecting the priesthood of Christ. The amount 
of the argument is,that by the oath of God ‘Christ was appointed to his. priesthood, while the 
Aaronical priests were appointed without such a solemnity; that the priesthood itself being of the 
order of Melchizedek, i.e. not of descent, not limited, not temporary, and of higher dignity than 
that of Aaron, Christ must be regarded as altogether superior to the order of Jewish priests. The 
inference of course is, that the Hebrews ought not to forsake him who was a superior priest, in or- 
der to attach themselves to those who were inferior ones. 

Having thus completed what he had to say respecting the comparison of Christ and Melchizedek 
as priests, (all of which is employed to the advantage of the cause which he is advocating), the 
writer resumes the topic which he had begun in 5; 7, 8, viz. that of Christ’s sympathy with those 
“who are compassed with infirmity.” He had already suggested there, that Christ possessed all 
the common sympathies and innocent infirmities of our nature, in common with other priests. But 
not to Jeave it uncertain whether in all respects Jesus was “‘ compassed with such infirmities” as 
the Jewish priests, he now proceeds to point out one important difference, viz. that the high priest 
of the new dispensation is altogether superior to the priests of the old, in regard to the moral pu- 
rity and perfection of his character. He is holy, and altogether sinless, 7: 26; and therefore needs 
not, like them, to offer any sacrifice on his own account, 7:27; for he has no such infirmity as 
renders this at all necessary, since he is priest in a state of perfection and glorious exaltation, 
7: 28. 

Having thus shewn the superiority of Christ over the Levitical priests, in respect to the second 
particular, viz. the qualification for sympathizing with erring men, the writer next proceeds to 
the most important topic of all, viz. the office of Christ as a priest, in directing the concerns of 
men with God, and in presenting a propitiatory sacrifice for them. 

He begins by averring, that the principal thing (κεφάλαιον) in respect to the matters which he 
is discussing, is the priesthood of Christ in the heavenly sanctuary, 8: 1,2. He then re-in- 
troduces the topic which he had before stated in 5:1. Taking for granted the truth of the senti- 
ment there stated, he now draws the inference from it, that Christ (being a priest) must also have 
an offering to present, 8: 1—3. But if Christ were on earth he could not be a priest; for priests, 
whose office it is to perform duty in the earthly sanctuary, are already constituted by divine ap- 
pointment, 8; 4; and these perform their office in a temple that is merely a copy or resemblance of 
the heavenly one, 8:5. Christ’s ministry is as much superior to theirs,.as the new covenant is to 
the old one, 8: 6; and the Scripture itself predicts, that the old covenant should be abolished, and 
the new one introduced in its stead, 8: 7—13. Of course the new covenant must be superior ; and 
Christ, who ministers in the ρον temple, must be superior to those who serve merely in the 
earthly one. 

Next, the writer nica to consider the manner and design of the sacerdotal service, and the 
ends which could be accomplished by it. 

The earthly temple consisted of various apartments, and contained a variety of utensils, 9: 1—5. 
The priests performed daily service in the outer temple, 9:6; while the high priest entered the 
inner one (where God dwelt) only once in each year, when he presented the blood of the great aton- 
ing sacrifice, 9: 7. A permission to enter only so seldom into the inner sanctuary, shewed that 
free access to God at all times and places was not yet granted, while the first dispensation lasted, 
9:8. Indeed, these rites with all their appurtenances were merely a symbol of what was to be 
effected under the gospel, 9: 9, 10. 

Christ on the other hand, the heavenly high priest, entered the eternal sanctuary with his own 


46 


358 CONTENTS OF HEBREWS V—X. 18. 


blood, procuring everlasting redemption for sinners, 9 : 11, 12. The blood of bulls and goats, pre- 
sented by the Jewish high priest, effected nothing more than ceremonial, external purification, 9 : 
13; while the blood of Christ purifies the conscience and renders the worshipper truly acceptable 
to God, 9: 14. : 

Even such is the efficacy of the propitiatory sacrifice made by the death of Christ, that it ex- 
tends back to the sins of former ages ; so that all, who are called of God to partake of the bless- 
ings of the gospel, attain, through his death, toa heavenly inheritance, 9 :15. 

The mention of Christ’s death here, in connection with the assurance effected by it of a heaven- 
ly inheritance for believers, affords occasion to the writer to compare the new διαϑη χη ratified 
by the death of Christ, with the διαϑῆκαι which are ratified by the death of testators. The 
Greek word διαϑη χη not only answers to ΓΞ) but also means such an arrangement as is 
made by a man’s last will or testament, and is employed, not unfrequently, in this latter sense. 
Hence our author, after asserting (9: 15) that Christ’s death made sure an inheritance to believ- 
ers, falls very naturally upon comparing the 0a@91/#y thus ratified by the death of Jesus, with the 
διαϑὴχαι ratified by the death of testators. Such, says he, is the custom among men in regard 
to testaments, that the death of the testators must supervene, in order to give them full effect and 
confirmation, 9: 16,17. Even the first διαϑη χη (742), (although it could not be so appro- 
priately called a testament), was sanctioned in a manner not unlike that in which the new 
διαϑήκη is sanctioned ; for blood (the emblem of death) was applied to almost every thing which 
pertained to the ancient covenant or διαϑηκὴ;, in order either to ratify or to consecrate it, 9: 
18—22. Now since this was so extensively done in regard to things here which are mere resem- 
blances or types of heavenly things, these heavenly things themselves, being of a nature so much 
more exalted, must be consecrated by a corresponding sacrifice of a higher nature than any offered 
in the earthly temple, 9: 23. For it is in the heavenly temple that Christ discharges the functions 
of his priestly office, 9:24; yet not, like the Jewish priests, repeating expiatory offerings fre- 
quently, but once for all performing this sacred rite, 9: 25,26. As men die but once, and Christ in 
his human nature and by dying in it made an expiatory offering, so he could make this but once ; 
therefore, when he shall make his second appearance, it will not be to repeat his sin-offering, but 
for the deliverance of all who wait for his coming, 9: 27, 28. 

Having thus compared various particulars, which have respect to the priesthood of the descend- 
ants of Aaron, to those which relate to the priesthood of Jesus; the writer comes, last of all, to 
treat more fully of the inefficacy of the Jewish sacrifices, and of the perfect and everlasting efficacy 
of that propitiatory offering, which was made by the high priest of the heavenly sanctuary. He 
had, indeed, already hinted at this, several times, in the preceding parts of his epistle,e. σ. 7: 11, 
19. 8:7, 13. 9:8—10. 9; 13, 14; but as it was the most important topic of all, and the most diffi- 
cult to be urged on the minds of Jews, he reserved it until the last, in order that he might give 
it a more ample discussion. 

He begins by declating, that the rites of the law were designed to be typical, and that the yearly 
sacrifices which were offered under it, never could quiet and purify the consciences of men, 10:1; 
otherwise, the offerings need not have been continually repeated, 10:2. The remembrance of sin 
is constantly renewed by them, 10; 3. Indeed, it is plainly impossible that the blood of bulls and 
goats should take away sin, i. e. remove the penalty of it, or lessen its power, 10: 4. In accord- 
ance with this sentiment, the Scripture (Ps. XL.) represents the Saviour, when entering upon his 
work, as saying that sacrifices and offerings are of no value in the sight of God, 10: 5,6. The Mes- 
siah represents himself as doing what God requires, viz. what God requires in order that he may 
exercise his clemency, 10: 7. Of course, (so our author reasons), sacrifices and offerings are rejected 
(in respect to making real propitiation), while the ‘‘ obedience of Christ unto death” is accepted in- 
stead of them, 10: 8,9. This sacrifice is truly efficacious for moral purposes, 10:10, The Jew- 
ish priests repeated continually their sacrifices ; but the offering of Christ once made, is of ever- 
lasting efficacy, 10:11, 12. Having once made this, he may expect the cause on account of which 
it was made to be victorious, 10: 13; for one offering once made by Jesus, is all sufficient ; its ef- 
fects are never to cease, 10: 14. To such an efficacy of Christ’s offering, the Holy Spirit has testi- 
fied in the Scriptures, by declaring that under the new covenant sin should be forgiven, and iniqui- 
ty no more remembered, 10: 15,16. Consequently offering for sin needs not to be repeated, after 
pardon is actually obtained, 10: 17, 18. 

With this consideration, the author closes the comparison of Jesus, as a priest, with the Jewish 
priests under the Levitical dispensation. This comparison in all its parts, however, occupies the 


CONTENTS OF HEBREWS V—X. 18. 359 


greater portion of his epistle, viz. from 4 : 14 to 10; 18. He then proceeds to exhortations, warn- 
ings, and various arguments drawn from different sources, in order to urge upon his Hebrew breth- 
ren the importance of persevering in the Christian faith. 

The writer of our epistle has sometimes been charged with being discursive, and with having ve- 
ry little cunnection in the series of his reasoning. If the charge of discuwrsiveness means, that he 
often stops short in his course of argument, in order to warn those whom he was addressing against 
danger and to expostulate with them, this is certainly true ina remarkable degree. But this is 
the ultimate and highest end which the writer himself had in view. If then he has practised di- 
gression, it is digression exceedingly to his purpose, and altogether consonant with the unconstrain- 
ed nature of epistolary address. 

In respect to an alleged want of connection in the author’s reasoning, the analysis already pre- 
sented is the best answer which I can give to this charge. The method of reasoning seems, indeed, 
to have been too commonly overlooked, or to have been only partially discerned, in the commenta- 
ries to which I have had access; but I cannot help thinking that there is a connection, which can 
be clearly and satisfactorily traced, throughout the whole. If I have succeeded in attempting to 
trace it, then the student will be aided in forming his views with respect to the relation that one 
part of our epistle bears to another, in that portion of it which has now been analyzed. 

If the question be asked, why the apostle should resort to comparisons of this nature in order to 
illustrate the office of Christ, or rather, the virtue and efficacy of his mediation and redemption ; 
the answer plainly is, ‘ A regard to the condition and feelings of those whom he addressed, led him 
todoso.’ The Jews of that day, regarded the office of high priest as the most honourable of all of- 
fices then sustained. The authority and dignity of this office were very great, in earlier times 
under the Jewish kings. But after the captivity, the offices of king and high-priest were frequent- 
ly united in the same person. ‘This, of course, would tend to elevate the esteem in which the Jews 
held the rank of high priest. When the Romans reduced Judea to a tributary province, the civil 
power was transferred to the Procurator sent there by them; but the supreme ecclesiastical power 
still remained in the hands of the high-priest, who was supreme judge of the Jand and president of 
the Sanhedrim. The high priest was, moreover, the only person who could enter the most holy 
place on the great day of national expiation, and make atonement for the people. On all these 
accounts, the Jews cherished the greatest degree of reverence for this office. They looked upon it 
as their glory, and expected from the functions of it, pardon for sin and acceptance with God. 
How difficult it was to wean them from these views, even those of them who had embraced Chris- 
tianity, the Acts of the Apostles and almost all the apostolic Epistles abundantly testify. But 
this must necessarily be done, however difficult, if Christianity was to be fully admitted and prac- 
tised by them. 

There can be no doubt that the unbelieving Jews would urge, with all their power, upon the 
new converts to Christianity, the views and feelings which the latter had once possessed in common 
with them in regard to this subject. It entered into the very essence of Judaism, that such views 
and feelings should be cherished ; and this was a trait which distinguished the Jews in a peculiar 
manner from other nations. The apostle, in addressing the Hebrew Christians, had to contend 
with such arguments as the adversaries of Christianity among the Jews would bring, in order to 
shake the constancy of the new converts. The splendour and the supposed importance of the Jew- 
ish high-priesthood, however, was after all a thing which Jewish Christians must be brought to 
renounce. How could they, educated as they had been, do this! To satisfy their minds on this 
subject, the apostle presents a comparison of this office in all its various respects, with the office 
of high priest as sustained by Christ; and he shews that instead of giving up any thing by embra- 
cing the new religion, they would only exchange a high priest who was imperfect, who offered sac- 
rifices that effected a purification only external and of mere temporary eflicacy, who officiated in a 
temple made with hands—all the mere type or symbol of something that was of a spiritual and 
more exalted nature—all this they would exchange, by embracing and adbering to the Christian 
religion, for a high priest without sin, whose sacrifice “ purged the conscience from dead works,” 
and had an “ everlasting efficacy ;” which was offered too in a temple not made with hands, of 
which the Jewish temple with all its splendour and solemn pomp was only a mere image. Could 
any thing now be better adapted to fortify the minds of those to whom he wrote in their Christian 
profession, and to wean them from their old prejudices? And is it not allowable, that an apostle 
should reason in a manner best adapted to the condition and feelings of those whom he addresses ? 

1 am aware that much has been said, by recent commentators, on arguing κατ᾿ GvIguztor, 


900 CONTENTS OF HEBREWS V—X. 18. 
or ina way of accommodation, in our epistle; and that all the comparisons made in it, between 
things and persons, under the law and under the gospel, have been ranked with this class of reason- 
ing or argument. For those who do not acknowledge the divine origin of the Jewish religion, nor 
that any of its rites, sacrifices, or persons were symbolical of any thing belonging to Christianity, 
such a mode of explanation may be necessary. But for those who believe, with the writer of our 
epistle, that the Jewish religion was of God, and that the ancient Scriptures have revealed a Mes- 
siah, very little, ifany of arguing merely in the way of accommodation in our epistle, needs to be 
admitted. Does not the 110th Psalm call Christ a high priest 2? And did not the Jews of Paul’s 
day admit (as well as Paul himself) that this Psalm had respect to the Messiah? Undoubtedly 
they did. Where then is the accommodation of the writer to the mere prejudices of those whom 
he addressed, when it is evident that both he and they entertained an opinion in common with re- 
gard to the exegesis of the 110th Psalm? Of course, both admitted that Christ was to be a high 
priest. But how? Why? Not of the ordinary kind ; for he did not descend from Aaron. Not to 
make expiation whith should merely pertain to externa] purification ; but to make an expiation 
which should purge ‘the conscience frem dead works,” and which should procure the pardon of 
sin with God, and “ bring in everlasting redemption for his people.” 

It is not, then, merely to satisfy the Jew that he need relinquish nothing of his regard for the 
excellence and importance of the office of high priest by embracing Christianity, and that he has 
exchanged a less splendid office of priest under Judaism for a more splendid one under Christiant- 
ty, that Paul dwells so Jong on the virtues and dignity of Christ’s office as high priest. No doubt 
he had this objeet in his eye, as I have already stated, when he entered upon the consideration of 
this topic. But why does he dwell on it so much longer than he does on the comparison of Christ 
with Moses? Not because the Jews exalted the high priest above Moses; for this surely they did not. 
It was because Christ, in the office of high priest, performed that peculiar duty which of all others 
made him what he was, the SAVIOUR of sinners, the REDEEMER of lost men; because, as 
priest, he offered an expiatory sacrifice which takes away the sins of the world, and makes him 
the propitiation for their offences. I am entirely unable to explain the copiousness of our epistle 
on this point, if this be not the reason of it. And if this be admitted, then there is reason enough 
why the apostle should dwell so Jong upon it. 

I know of no part of the Scriptures which explains the nature and object of the Jewish ritual, in 
a manner so spiritual, so satisfactory, so clear,so worthily of God, and so profitably to us, as 
chaps. V.—X. of the epistle to the Hebrews. Asa key to the Old Testament, these chapters de- 
serve the most attentive and thorough study of all who wish to understand the Bible. As a state- 
ment and vindication of the great work of Christ, and the atonement which he made by his blood for 
sin, they stand in the very first rank of all the Scriptural writings. As adapted to the wants and 
condition of those whom the apostle addressed, they are a consummate specimen of skilful argu- 
ment, and of powerful persuasion and remonstrance. 


14. "Lyovreg οὖν ἀρχιερέα μέγαν, moreover since we have a great 
high priest. So the words literally construed seem to mean. But it is 
doubtful whether this translation conveys the exact shade of meaning 
which should be attached to the original. In the apostle’s day, aozee- 
o«vs no longer designated merely one man, the single head of the whole 
priesthood, but it was applied also to his deputy (12) ; to those who 
had quitted the office of the high priesthood (exauctorati) ; and also to 
the priest at the head of each of the twenty four classes of the priest- 
hood. The word cozcegevs of itself, then, without any adjunct, did not, 
in the time of Paul, designate the high priest by way of eminence, who 
was the only person that could enter the most holy place and make 
atonement for sin. Hence the apostle says, not simply ἀρχιερεύς, but 
ἀρχιερεὺς μέγας; which designates a specific individual. This corres- 


nEBREws IV. 14, 15. 901 


ponds exactly to the idea conveyed by the Hebrew 5453 1π|, which 
was applied only to him who was actually Pontifex Maximus. Οὖν is 
here the sign of resuming the subject introduced in chap. 3: 1, for thus 
it is often used; or it may be a mere continuative of discourse, and so I 
have rendered it. In the other sense it is equivalent to as was said, in- 
quam, then, etc. 

4ιληλυϑότα τοὺς οὐρανούς, passed through the heavens. ~Wahl 
and others, passed into the heavens ; interpreting διεληλυϑότα as equiv- 
alent to εἰσερχόμενον, entered into. But they seem to me plainly to 
have mistaken the force of the writer’s expression here. According to 
the Hebrew idiom, God dwells above the visible firmament, 0772%3, ov- 
oavol, i.e. in the third heavens; comp. 2 Cor. 12:2. Through this 
firmament Jesus passed, when he ascended to take his “seat at the 
right hand of the majesty on high, 1: 3.” There is a plain allusion, 
too, to the high priest of the Jews, who once in a year went into the 
most holy place, passing through the vail which screened the residence 
of divine majesty from the view of men, 9:7, 8. So our great high 
priest has passed through the heavens, into the immediate presence of 
God, into the “holy of holies” in the upper world. This explanation, 
which Bengel, Owen, and Kuinoel defend, I must think to be the 
right one ; although Ernesti ventures to call it stuléta animadversio. 

᾿Τησοῦν tov υἱὸν τοὺ ϑεοῦ is added, to shew specifically whom he 
means to designate by ἀρχέερέα. Koataper τῆς ὁμολογίας, let us firm- 
ly hold [tenaciously adhere to] the religion which we have professed, 
viz. Christianity. Agazéw takes either the Acc. or Gen. after it. 

To encourage them to follow this advice, the writer sets before them 
the assistance which they may expect in their efforts so to do. 

(15) Ov γὰρ. ... ἀσϑενείαις ἡμῶν, for we have not a high priest, 
who is incapable “oh sympathizing with, or of being compassionate 
towards, our weaknesses. The form of the expression is negative; amode 
of expression frequently employed by the sacred writers. When the 
negative form is thus employed, it is of the same meaning as an affirma- 
tive assertion would be, i.e. it is the same in this case as if the author 
had said, “ We have a high priest who will sympathize with our weak- 
nesses.” So “John confessed, and denied not, but confessed, etc.” 
John 1:20. In most cases, however, there is some speciality of colour- 
ing designed to be given, when this negative form of expression is cho- 
sen in preference to simple affirmation. 

Henevgaomevor, seeon2:18. 4é, but, for so the sense requires 
here. Kara πάντα, in allrespects ; not to be metaphysically or mathe- 
matically taken. The meaning is, that he, like us, was subjected to 


362 nesrews LV. 15, 16. 


trial and satiety on account of the truth; he, ἫΝ us, was aici to 
sin, e.g. when Satan tempted him, and often when the Scribes and 
Pharisees tempted him. 

Kad ὁμοιότητα, scil. ἡμῶν, i.e. who was tempted like us ; παρα- 
πλησίως ἡμῶν, says Theophylact; ὁμοίως ἡμῖν, Origen. This surely 
does not imply, that temptations had in all respects the same influence 
upon him as upon us; but only that he was exposed to be attacked by 
them in like manner as we are. He possessed a nature truly human, 
2: 14, 17; he was therefore susceptible of being excited by the power 
of temptations, although he never yielded to them. So the writer ; 

“Χωρὶς ἁμαρτίας, without sin; i. 6. although assailed by temptations 
of every kind, he never yielded in any case to their influence. He re- 
mained sinless. But why is this asserted here? Principally, I appre- 
hend, to guard against any mistake in respect to what the writer had 
Just said. To shew the Hebrews that they might depend on the sym- 
pathy and compassion of their high priest (comp. 2: 17, 18), to help 
them in all the trials and difficulties to which an unshaken adherence 
to Christianity would subject them, he declares that Jesus was himself 
subject to the like trials in all respects. But when he had so said, as 
if fearing they might conclude that in some cases at least he was (like 
others) overcome by them, the author immediately adds, χωρὶς ἁμαρ- 
τίας. It may be, that the expression implies an exhortation thus, viz., 
‘Jesus when tried did not sin; Christian brethren, follow his example.’ 
I prefer, however, the former explanation. 

(16) Let us, therefore, approach the throne of grace μετὰ παῤῥησίας, 
lit. with freedom of speech; 1. 6. since we have such ἃ sympathizing, 
compassionate high priest, to offer our supplications to God and to 
help us, let us go to God with confidence that we shall receive the aid 
that we need. “Ask and ye shall receive.” Tw ϑροοόνῷ τῆς χάριτος 
has reference to the mercy seat in the temple, on which God is re- 
presented as sitting enthroned. There he heard the supplications of 
his people, which were presented by the high priest; there he accept- 
ed their oblations ; and from thence he dispensed to them the blessings 
which they needed. Christians may now approach the Era seat in 
heaven, by their high priest, and may come wera παρῥησίας, with con- 
fidence. 

“Iva λάβωμεν ἕλεον, that we may obtain mercy, i.e. that we may ob- 
tain compassion in our afflictions and trials. Kal χάρεν εὕρωμεν... 
Bondevav, and find favour in respect to timely assistance. Χάριν does 
not here differ much from ἔλεον, except that it is a word of a more 


HEBREWS V. I. 363 


generic nature. The sentiment is, that we may be helped opportunely, 
i.e. that now, when we are persecuted and sorely pressed by trials, we 
may obtain that aid which such seasons require. This is exactly the 
idea conveyed by evxacgor βοήϑειαν, auxilium opportunum.  Literal- 
ly the Greek runs thus, And find grace with respect to opportune assis- 
tance. 


CHAP. V. 


(1) HE ἀνθρώπων λαμβανόμενος, selected, taken from men. So 
λαβεῖν, in Acts 15:14. Ina similar sense ΠΡ 5 is often used in He- 
brew ; and λαμβάνω, not unfrequently, in the classics. The meaning 
is, that priests appointed according to the usages of the Levitical law 
(in distinction from the great high priest constituted by the special ap- 
pointment of God), are appointed to have the oversight of the religious 
concerns of the people, specially to make their oblations and sacrifices. 

“Ὑπὲρ ἀνθρώπων καϑίσταται τὰ πρὸς τὸν ϑεόν, is constituted for 
the benefit of men, in relation to their concerns with God. αϑίσταταιν 
is often employed to designate an appointment to office of any kind; 
e.g. Matt. 24: 45. Luke 12: 14, et ἃ]. So also it is used by heathen 
writers. Ὑπέρ, for the benefit of, for the sake of, on account of ; a fre- 
quent use of the word. Ta πρὸς τὸν θεόν, for κατὰ τὼ x. τ. A, there 
being an ellipsis of the preposition, which is very common in such 
cases. The idea is, ‘In respect to their religious concerns, in regard 
to business which they have to transact with God ;’ particularly, 

“Iva προσφέρῃ... .. ἁμαρτιῶν, that he may offer [to God] both obla- 
tions and sacrifices for sin. Awga 1 take here to mean the various 
kinds of thank-offerings, etc., that were to be presented to God, agreea- 
bly to the ritual established by Moses; and ϑυσίας, the various sin and 
trespass-offerings that were made with slain beasts. Θυσίας refers to 
the act of slaying, as it is derived from ϑύω fo kill. In all these and 
the like concerns, the high priest was to act the part of an internuntius, 
a mediator, between God and men; i. e. he was ἰώ aid men in regard to 
their spiritual or religious concerns. It should be remarked, however, 
that δῶρα sometimes includes the idea of sacrifices; 68. σ. 8: 4, comp. 
8:3. Yet where both δῶρα and ϑυσία are both employed, they are not 
to be regarded as synonymes. Both together are employed to designate 
the universality of the idea intended, i.e. (in this case) offerings of 
every kind. 


364 HEBREWS V. 2. 


(2) Mergconavsty δανάμενος, one who can exercise gentleness or 
moderation. This classic or philosophic use of the word μέτριοπαϑεῖν 
may be briefly explained. The Stoics maintained that a man should 
be ἀπαϑής, i.e. not subject to passions, such as anger, fear, hope, joy, 
etc. The Platonists, on the other hand, averred that a wise man should 
be μετριοπαϑής, moderate in his affections, and not anadng. The 
leading sense, then, of the word μετριοπαϑεῖν, is, to be moderate in our 
feelings or passions. In our text, the connection shows us that this 
moderation or gentleness was to be exercised by the high priest τοῖς 
ἀγνοοῦσι καὶ πλανωμένοις, toward those who were ignorant and erring. 
In other words, he was to be lenient towards offenders, to treat them 
with gentleness and moderation, with kindness and not with severity. 
The comparison of Christ as a priest, in respect to this point, is pre- 
sented in 5: 7—9. 

*Ayvoovor καὶ πλαμωμένοις some have construed as a Hendiadys, 
and rendered the phrase thus: those who ignorantly offend, or who of- 
fend through ignorance. But surely the indulgence of the high-priest 
on earth, was not limited merely to this class of offenders; much less is 
the clemency of our great high-priest in the heavens so limited. “Ayvoew 
is repeatedly used by the Seventy, as a translation of the Hebrew maw, 
420, nwN, which signify to err, to commit sin, to render one’s self 
guilty. So Sirac 5: 18, in a great or little thing wn ayvoet, sin not. 
So Polyb. V. 11. 5, πολεμεῖν τοῖς ἀγνοήσασι, to make war on those who 
have been faulty. But if any should think it preferable, in our verse, 
to retain the common sense of ignorance, then plainly it must be con- 
strued of voluntary criminal ignorance; and in such a case, πλανωμέ- 
νοις designates those who commit offences in consequence of such igno- 
rance. But I prefer to understand ἀγνοοῦσι καὶ πλανωμένοις as an 
accumulation of descriptive words, in order to designate offenders of 
various kinds; and so, although I have rendered ἀγνοοῦσι the ignorant, 
yet I mean this in the sense of being voluntarily, and therefore crimi- 
nally, ignorant. 'This mode of explaining the expression comports with 
the office of the Levitical priest in the earthly sanctuary, and with that 
of Jesus in the heavenly one. 

"Ensi καὶ... ἀσϑένειαν, since he himself is compassed with infirm- 
ity, i. e. he is himself an offender, or he is exposed by his weaknesses 
to commit the like sins with those whose offerings he is called to present 
to God. Περίκειται, in the passive, is construed with an Accusative 
after it. σϑένεια here means moral infirmity or weakness, not 
natural frailty of the physical system. The meaning is, that the high 
priest ‘haud ignarus mali, miseris succurrere discit.’ 


HEBREWS V. 3—6. 365 


(3) Kal διὰ ταύτην... ἁμαρτιῶν, and on this account [viz. because 
he himself is a sinner], he must present sin-offerings as well for himself 
as for the people. Προσφερεῖν i.e. πρόσφοραν or ϑυσίαν, Hebrew 
mDiy mbm. «ΠΙροσφέρω is the common word employed to denote the 
presentation of an offering, gift, or sacrifice to God, and corresponds to 
the Hebrew >», or rather 22% in Hiphil. See the superiority of 
Christ represented, in respect to the point here suggested, as to the duty 
or obligation of priests in general, in 7: 26—28. 

(4) Kai οὐκ ἑαυτῷ... . ᾿“αρῶν, moreover, no one can assume the 
honour [of the high priesthood] to himself, but he is appointed by G'od, 
even as Aaron was. Καλούμενος, i.e. δεῖ καλούμενος εἶναι. 

(5) Οὕτω nai... . ἀρχιερέα, accordingly, Christ did not claim for 
himself the honour of being high-priest, or Christ did not exalt himself 
ἐο the honour of being high-priest. ΖΙοξάξειν, to exalt, to claim honour 
for, John 8: 54. Rom. 11: 18. 

"AN ὁ λαλήσας. .. yeyévunna. σε, but he who said to him, Thou art 
my Son, this day have I begotten thee, [ἐδόξασεν αὐτόν, exalted him.] 
So the ellipsis must be supplied. The meaning is, exalted him to the 
office of high-priest, i. e. the Father, who hath given to the Son an ex- 
alted station, hath bestowed this honour also upon his Son (see on 1: 5) ; 
or in other words, Christ was divinely appointed to office. 

(6) ἄαϑως καὶ ἐν ἑτέρῳ λέγει, as also he saith, in another [passage 
of Scripture]. The declaration is, that the Father constituted the Son 
a priest; for the writer had affirmed (in v. 4), that a priest must be 
divinely constituted. The quotation is from Ps. 110:4; a Psalm 
which, as I have before remarked, not only the apostle and most Chris- 
tian commentators, but even the Jewish Rabbies in general, agree, has 
relation to the Messiah. 

Σὺ ἱερεὺς... .. Mehytoedéx, thou art a priest forever, after the order 
of Melchizedek. “Ἱερεύς designates here a priest generically considered. 
The Psalmist, and after him the apostle, does not say ἀρχιερεύς, be- 
cause the sequel shews that the personage referred to must be of the 
highest order of priests, viz. of the same order with that of Melchize- 
dek. 

Kara τὴν τάξιν, Hebrew 7737 Py 1. 6. N27 >Y, for > is paragogic 
here. This Hebrew phrase commonly means on account of, for the 
sake of ; but such a meaning would be wholly inapposite in Ps. 110: 4. 
The sense of it, as there employed, plainly is similar to that of [27 in 
Deut. 15:9. 19: 4. 1 K. 9: 15, viz. manner, order, arrangement, kind. 
So in its classic sense ταξός means order, arrangement, place, office, 

47 ' 


900 HEBREWS V. 6, 7. 


ἘΞ τ ΞΘ ΎΌΘΘΞΘΞΞΘΘΒΒΘΕΣΞιΞΞΞ Ξ-.,. =: 


rank. The simple meaning of the whole phrase, is, ‘Thou art a priest 
of an order or rank like that of Melchizedek.’ 

When in v. 10 the writer repeats the quotation here made, he uses 
ἀρχιερεὺς instead of ἱερεύς the word employed here in his first quota~ 
tion. ‘The object of the quotation in v. 6 is simply to prove, that the 
office of high-priest was conferred on Christ by divine appointment ; 
comp. vs. 4 and 6, The particulars of the comparison in respect to the 
priesthood of Christ and Melchizedek, are not immediately brought into 
view, but suspended until the writer has introduced other considerations 
relative to Christ as a priest, 5: 7—9, and given vent to his feelings of 
concern for those whom he was addressing, by suggesting various con- 
siderations adapted to reprove, 5: 11—14, to warn, 6: 1—9, as well as 
to excite and animate them, 6: 10—20. 

In regard to κατὰ τὸν αἰῶνα, it is to be taken in a qualified sense 
here, as often elsewhere, e. g. comp. Luke 1:33 with 1 Cor. 15: 24— 
28. The priesthood of Christ will doubtless continue no longer than 
his mediatorial reign ; for when his reign as mediator ceases, his whole 
work both as mediator and as priest will have been accomplished. 

In respect to the application of Ps. cx. to the Messiah, see Matt. 22: 
41—45. Certain it is, from this passage, that Jesus considered and 
treated this Psalm as applying to himself. 


The three following verses I take to be a comment on 5: 2; or to express my 
meaning more fully, a comparison of Christ as a priest, with the Jewish priests, 
who, being themselves compassed with infirmity, were taught, by experience 
μετριοπαϑεῖν τοῖς ἀγνοοῦσι καὶ πλανωμένοις. It is, however, ouly the znnocent 
infirmities of one exposed to suffering, that are brought to view here. These 
Christ possessed in full, so that he could, like other priests, sympathize with 
those who are tempted and tried by suffering. None of his disciples are tried 
more severely than he was. 

The writer, however, does not complete this topic here. He breaks off, in or- 
der to pursue the course of thought to which the introduction of Melchizedek’s 
priesthood led him, and for the sake of inserting practical warning, reproof, 
and exhortation, 5: 11—6: 25; andin 6: 26 he resumes the consideration of the 
topic thus interrupted, and shews that as to sinful infirmities Christ was not 
to be compared with the Jewish priests, for he had none of them. Thus while, 
like other priests, he was fitted to exercise compassion on those who are suffering 
and are tempted, he was altogether superior to them in the moral perfection of 
his own character. He needed no sin-offering for himself, (comp. 5: 4); but 
was high-priest, in a state where he was εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα τετελειωμένον, 7: 2—28. 


(7) Ὃς ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις τῆς σαρχὸὺς αὐτοῦ, who, during the time of 
his incarnation. “Huéoae, like the Heb. m2", means time, season. 
Τῆς σαρχὸς I understand as designating the condition of the Locos in- 
carnate, or ἕν σαρκί; comp. John 1:1, 14. 1 Tim.3:16. The whole 
expression designates the period of the Saviour’s humiliation, when “ he 
was tempted in all points as we are, 4: 15.” 


HEBREWS V. 7. 907 


ΗΝ καὶ ἱκετηρίας προσενέγκας, offered up prayers and sae 
cations. These two words are~ often joined by profane writers ; e. ¢ 
ἱκετηρίας πολλὰς καὶ δεήσεις ποιούμενοι, Isoc. de Pace. Χωρὶς δὲ 
ἱκετηρίας καὶ δεήσεως, Philo de Cherub. p. 110. So also Lucian and 
Plutarch. Some critics have referred δεήσεις to prayers proceeding 
from a sense of need; and ἱκετηρίας to submissive intercession. But al- 
though in some cases the words may be so employed, they are general- 
ly used as synonymous or nearly so. The use of both these syno- 
nymes denotes intensive supplication or intercession; a mode of express- 
ing intensity, which is very frequent in the sacred writings 

ΤΙρὸς τὸν δυνάμενον ow fer αὐτὸν ἐκ ϑανάτου, i. 6. to the sove- 
reign Lord of life and death, the “ God in whose hands our breath is, 
and whose are all our ways:’ a periphrasis in this case which means, 
“God who is possessed of supreme power, or the sovereign Lord of life 
and death.’ 

Μετὰ κραυγῆς ἰσχυρᾶς καὶ δακρύων, voce alid et lacrymis, with 
loud cries and with tears or weeping ; see Luke 22: 41—44. Matt. 26: 
38, 39. 27:46. Mark 15: 34—36, and comp. Luke 12:50. John 
12: 27,28. Δραυγῆς ἰσχυρᾶς denotes the intensity of the voice when 
raised high by agonizing supplication, Luke 22:44. The Evangelists 
do not mention the weeping of the Saviour ; but who can doubt that he 
did weep, when he prayed in such an agony that he sweat as it were 
drops of blood, Luke 22: 44? 

Καὶ εἰσακουσϑεὶς ano τῆς εὐλαβείας, and was heard in respect to 
that which he feared, or was delivered from that which he feared. The 
classic sense of εὐλάβεια is fear, dread; and this is the sense in which 
it is commonly employed in the Septuagint. But as the Hebrew words 
NZ? and NY mean, reverence and to revere, as well as fear and to 
fear or to dr ead, so the Greek εὐλάβεια, εὐλαβής, εὐλαβέω, are some- 
times employed to designate the idea of reverence, and consequently 
(like sm Ὠδ 15) of piety, devotion, religion. But the usual classic 
sense of the word is to be preferred in our verse, viz., fear or object of 
dread, like the Hebrew 89472. Etoouxovw and ἐπακούω are frequent- 
ly employed, in the Septuagint, in order to translate the Hebrew verb 
m2»; and ΓΙῺΣ very often means, fo answer a prayer or request. To 
answer a request for deliverance, is to deliver or save from. 'This sense 
the verb 2¥ sometimes has; Ps. 22:22, from the horns of the wild 
bull 92722 , ‘deliver me, (the preceding parallelism has "29°05 save 
me) ; Job 85: 12, from the pride of the wicked 7292 8>, he [God] will 
not deliver. So Ps. 118:5, et al. We may render εἰσακουσϑείς, 


908 HEBREWS V. 7—9. 


then, was delivered. Still this is not absolutely necessary, inasmuch as 
he was heard in respect to the object of fear, gives the same sense, viz. 
‘from that which he dreaded Christ was delivered, or his entreaties 
were listened to in respect to that which he dreaded.’ “Ano, like the 
Hebrew 12, 72, is sometimes employed in the sense of quod attinet ad, 
so that it accords with the general meaning of negi; 6. g. in Acts 17:2. 
See Schleusner Lex. ἀπὸ, No. 18. Gesen. Heb. Lex. 12 No. 4. If 
éloaxovodes be translated (as the Hebrew 2» in some cases should 
be rendered), was delivered, then the usual sense of ἀπό is perfectly ap- 
propriate ; and on this account I have thought such a translation to be 
preferable, and made it accordingly. See Excursus XI. 

(8) Kaineo ὧν viog .... ὑπακοήν, although a Son, yet did he learn 
obedience by suffering, i. e. although he was God’s only and well belov- 
ed Son, a personage of the most exalted dignity, yet was he put to the 
trial of obedience in the midst of sufferings ; or rather, he was subject- 
ed to learn, experimentally, what it is to obey in the midst of sufferings. 
So I interpret this somewhat difficult and much agitated verse. I can- 
not suppose the object of the writer to be, an assertion that Christ did 
not understand the nature of obedience or recognize the duty of it, be- 
fore he suffered; but that it pleased God to exalt him to glory, in the 
way of obedience by suffering as well as by action. Such is the senti- 
ment in 2:10. Of such an obedience our epistle speaks in 10: 7, 
quoted from Ps. 40: 8,9; and such is that mentioned in Phil. 2: 8, 
obedience unto death, even the death of the cross, which, in the sequel, 
is asserted to be the special ground of Christ’s exaltation to the throne 
of the universe. To mention such an obedience here, is altogether 
apposite to the apostle’s design; which was, fully to impress on the 
Hebrews the sympathizing and compassionate nature of the Saviour, 
and his fitness to succour those who were under sufferings and trials; 
comp. 2: 17,18. 4:15, 16. The same is implied in 5: 1, 2. 

(9) Kai τελειωθεὶς... αἰωνίου, and being exalted to glory, he 
became the author of eternal salvation [he procured salvation] for all 
those who obey him. For τελειωϑείς, see on 2: 10, where is the same 
sentiment as here, and where Christ (who is here said to be αἴτεος σω- 
trygiac) is called τὸν ἀρχηγὸν τῆς σωτηρίας, which has the same mean- 
ing. As to chap. 2: 10, the whole of the preceding context there is 
occupied with shewing the exaltation or kingly dignity of Christ ; and 
to the like state of exaltation reAevw εἰς undoubtedly refers here. There 
is also conveyed, by v. 9, an intimation that Christ’s very sufferings stand 
in an intimate and necessary connection with his exaltation to the king- 


HEBREWS V. 9--I11. 369 


ly office, so that he is a kingly priest, as Melchizedek also was. There 
is evidently no necessity, however, of including the whole of vs. 7—9 in 
a parenthesis, as many commentators have done; nor of regarding them 
as an interruption of the apostle’s discourse. ‘The fact is, as we have 
seen in the illustration above, that a new topic or head is introduced by 
them, which is broken off in 5: 11, after the manner of Paul, and re- 
sumed in 7: 26. 

(10) Ππηροσαγορευϑεὶς .... Mehyvocdex, being called by God, [as I 
was saying |, a high-priest after the order of Melchizedek. IIeoouyo- 
gevm means to name, to salute by calling a name, to greet. "The mean- 
ing is, that Christ is greeted or saluted by the name or appellation, 
ἀρχιερεύς, 7D. In the Septuagint, Ps. 109: 4 [110: 4], and above 
in v. 6, it is ἱερεύς, But the Hebrew 74> means either ἀρχιερεύς or 
ἱερεύς ; see Lev. 4: 16, et al.; so that the apostle might render the ori- 
ginal in Ps. 110: 4, by either Greek word. Accordingly, he has chosen 
ἀρχιερεύς. 


Having thus introduced the subject of Christ’s exaltation as priest, the nature 
of the comparison introduced, viz. the comparison of Christ’s priesthood with 
that of Melchizedek, occasions the writer to stop short in order to comment on 
this, and also to give utterance to his emotions of concern for those whom he 
addressed. The difficulty and obscurity of the subject which he is about to dis- 
cuss, are, in his view, occasioned principally by the low state of religious know- 
ledge in those whom he addresses. This he te!ls them very plainly, in order to 
reprove them for the little progress they had made in Christian knowledge, as 
well as to guard them against objecting to what he is about to advance. 


(11) Περὶ οὗ πολὺς ἡμῖν ὁ hoyosg.... λέγειν, respecting whom we 
have much to say. So Lysias in Panoc., πολὺς ἂν εἴη μοι λόγος διη- 
γεῖσϑαι. Dionys. Halicar. I. 23, περὶ ὧν πολὺς ἂν εἴη λόγος. 

Kai δυσερμήνευτος, and difficult of explanation, from δύς and ἑρμη- 
vevm. Critics frequently couple the word Avery which follows, with 
δυσερμήνευτος᾽ but the example above, from Lysias, shews that it 
should be associated with λόγος. The grammatical construction or 
arrangement I take to be this; περὶ οὗ λέγειν, πολὺς ἡμῖν [εἴη] ὁ λό- 
γος; the Infinitive λέγεεν being used as a noun in the Nominative, or as 
the subject of the sentence, according to a common usage. 

‘Enel νωϑροὶ γεγόνατε ταῖς ἀκοαῖς, since ye are dull of apprehen- 
sion, or slow in understanding. Twig ἀκοαῖς, lit. in hearing. But 
ἀκούω to hear, means often to perceive, to understand, like the Hebrew 
yD. 

The reason why they are so dull in respect to understanding religious 
subjects, is next suggested by the writer; doubtless with the design of 


970 HEBREWS V. 12, 13. 


reproving those whom he addresses, for their neglect to make a suitable 
progress in Christian knowledge. 

(12) Kai yao ὀφείλοντες... χρόνον, for when ye ought to be even 
capable of teaching, as it respects the length of time, viz. length of time 
since ye made a profession of the Christian religion. The writer doubt- 
less does not mean to say, that the whole church whom he addressed 
should actually be teachers; but that they ought to have made advances 
enough in the knowledge of spiritual subjects to be able to teach in 
them, or in other words, ought to have made very considerable acquisi- 
tions in religious knowledge, considering the length of time that had 
elapsed since they professed to be Christians. va τὸν χρύνον may be 
rendered after the time, i.e. after so much time; comp. διά in Matt. 
26: 61. Mark 14: 58, 2:1. Acts 24:17. Gal. 2: 1. 

Πάλιν χρείαν ἔχετε... «τοῦ ϑεοῦ, ye have need that one should 
again teach you the very rudiments of divine doctrine. Στοιυχεῖα, ele- 
ments or rudiments of any science. ὡΣτοιχεῖα τῆς ἀρχῆς, the rudiments 
of the beginning, is the same as Horace’s elementa prima, Serm. 1. The 
idea is expressed by the phrase, very rudiments or first elements, elementa 
prima. Τῶν λογίων τοῦ ϑεοῦ, I should refer particularly to those parts 
of the Old Testament which have a respect to the Christian religion, 
and especially to the Messiah, were it not that in chap. VI. 1—3, the 
writer has shewn that he means the rudiments of Christian doctrine in 
its appropriate sense. Aoyiwy ϑεοῦ then must mean here, doctrines 
or communications of God, viz. which God has revealed under the gos- 
pel, i. e. divine doctrine or doctrines of divine original. 

This feeble, imperfect, spiritual condition, the writer now describes, 
by a very appropriate figure taken from the aliment and condition of 
young children. 

Καὶ γεγόνατε χρείαν... τροφῆς, and ye have become [like] those 
who necd milk, and not solid nourishment, lit. ye have become those 
who need, etc. But the particle of similitude is, in such cases, very 
often omitted in the Old Testament and in the New. The meaning is, 
‘Ye have, in spiritual things, become as children are in regard to food, 
i. e. unable to bear or to digest any thing but the most light and 
simple nourishment, ye cannot understand or bear the higher and 
more difficult doctrines, ye cannot properly apprehend them when they 
are proposed to you.’ Zoogy, nourishment, any kind of food, not 
meat only. 

(18) Πᾶς γὰρ ὦ μετέχων... .. νήπιος γὰρ ἐστι, now every one who 
partakes of milk, is unskilled in the doctrine of righteousness, for he is 


ΠΕΒΠΕΒ V. 13, 14. 911 


α child. "“πειρος, inexpers, ineptus ad aliquam rem, i. e. one who has 
not that skill or experience in regard to any thing, which is requisite to 
a due apprehension and consideration of it. 'The sentiment is, ‘ As he 
who must be fed with milk, is yet a child; so ye, who can bear only 
the lighter kinds of spiritual nourishment, are yet νήπεοι in religion.’ 
Aoyou δικαιοσύνης, doctrine of salvation, i. e. the gospel or the Chris- 
tian religion, according to some; δικαιοσύνης meaning here, as they 
suppose, what the Christian religion sanctions or ordains. See Schleus- 
ner on δικαιοσύνην, no.9. Others render δικαιοσύνην, grace, favour, 
i.e. the gospel which reveals grace, favour, pardon. Others translate 
it true doctrine, because PIX and n73N are sometimes synonymous. 
Others translate it perfect doctrine, as being the antithesis of za στοι- 
χεῖα κι τ. λ. above. So Abresch, Wahl, Ernesti, Kuinoel, etc. I would 
translate it simply, the doctrine of righteousness, 1. 6. of true upright- 
ness of life, including piety towards God and integrity towards men. 
So, or to the like purpose, is δικαιοσύνη employed in Acts 10: 35, 13: 
10. 24: 25. Matt. 5: 20.5: 6. 6:33. 21:32. Luke 1: 75. Rom. 6: 
16—22, et alibi saepe. 

(14) 7ελείων δέ ἐστιν ἢ στερεὰ τροφή, but solid food is for those 
of mature age. Teheiwy, adult, grown up, i.e. those who have ob- 
tained completion in a physical respect ; see on 2: 10. δ: 9. 

Τῶν διὰ τὴν fw... . κακοῦ, who possess organs of sense, exercised 
by practice for distinguishing between good and evil. The metaphor 
here, as in the preceding verse, is of a mixed nature; the latter clause 
being appropriate to moral τέλεξεοι. The meaning is, that solid food, 
which is an image of the more difficult part of gospel doctrines, is ap- 
propriate to full grown men, 1. 6. to Christians who have come to a 
maturer state, and who, by experience in matters of religion and frequent 
reflection upon them, have made advances so as to be able to distin- 
guish what is right and what is wrong respecting them. ᾿“Πισϑητήρια 
here means the internal senses of Christians, their moral powers or fac- 
ulties of distinguishing and judging; although the term itself, in its 
literul acceptation, designates the external organs of sense. Avaxorouv 
καλοῦ καὶ xaxov is borrowed from the Heb. 51 21D 91ὸ; see Gen. 2: 
17. Deut. 1: 39, and comp. Is. 7: 15, 16. Jonah 4: 11. It is applied 
by the Hebrews to designate a more mature and advanced state of 
knowledge in respect to any thing, and not simply to the mere perceiv- 
ing of a difference between the moral nature of good and evil. So in 
the verse before us, we cannot suppose the writer to mean, that the 
Hebrews were not yet zéAecoe in such a sense as to be able to discern 


372 HEBREWS VI. 1. ἢ 


the difference between good and evil, simply considered. He evidently 
means, that they were in such a state, as not readily to discern what 
was true or false in respect to the more difficult doctrines of the Chris- 
tian religion; they were not as yet capable of rightly understanding and 
estimating them. From this state it was their duty speedily to extricate 
themselves; and this the writer now goes on and exhorts them to do. 


CHAP. VI. 


(1) “Avo ἀφέντες... φερώμεϑα, wherefore, leaving the first rudi- 
ments of Christian doctrine, let us procecd to a more advanced state 
[of knowledge]. -4co 1 interpret here in the usual serise. I understand 
the reasoning of the apostle thus: ‘ Wherefore, i.e. since τέλειον only 
are capable of στερεὰ τροφή, solid food, viz. of receiving, digesting, and 
duly appropriating the higher and more difficult doctrines of Christian- 
ity, and since ye are yet but νήπεον, although ye ought to be advanced 
in Christian knowledge, if regard be had to the long time that ye have 
professed the Christian religion, 5: 12—14; διό, therefore it becomes 
you to quit this state of immaturity, this νηπιότητα, and advance to a 
maturer state, to a τελεύτητα. The reasoning is plain, when thus un- 
derstood, and the connection palpable. The word ἀφέντες is capable 
of the signification given to it by this method of interpretation. “_4qtv)- 
pe signifies, among other things, relingquo, abeo, discedo, relinquo post 
me, etc., and is frequently applied to quitting a thing for the sake of 
going to some different place, or of engaging in a different employment ; 
6.5. Matt. 4: 20, 22. 5: 24. 18:12. 19:27. John 10: 12. . The 
meaning here I take to be this, ‘Quitting the mere initial state of pu- 
pilage, advance forward to a maturer state of instruction and know- 
ledge ;’ or, “Make such advances, that it shall be unnecessary to repeat 
elementary instruction in the principles of Christianity, vs. 2, 3.’ 

Others (and most commentators) understand ἀφέντες here in the 
sense of omitting, and apply it to the apostle in the following way ; 
‘ Omitting now to insist on the first elements of Christian doctrine, let 
me proceed to the consideration of the more difficult principles of re- 
ligion, not discussing at present the subject of repentance, baptism, 
etc. ; which I will do, i.e. I will discuss the higher principles, if God 
permit ;’ or, as some interpret this last clause, ‘ Which [first rudiments] 
I shall discuss by and by, Deo volente; referring καὶ τοῦτο ποιήσομεν 
io the discussion of the doctrines just mentioned. 


| 


| 


HEBREWS VI. 1. 979 


But a difficulty in admitting this interpretation lies in the context 
which follows. According to the method of interpretation just proposed 
the reasoning would be thus; ‘Omitting now all discussion respecting 
the first rudiments of Christian doctrine, I will proceed to disclose the 
more abstruse principles.of the same; for it is impossible (ἀδύνατον 
yao) that apostates should be again renewed to repentance.’ Is there 
any coherence in such reasoning? If there is, it is at least very diffi- 
cult to see it. But does the other method proposed relieve the difficul- 
ty? Let us see. It stands thus; ‘Christian brethren, who ought by 
this time to be qualified by your knowledge of religion to become 
teachers of it, quit the state of ignorance in which you are. Let it not 
be necessary any more to teach you the first rudiments of Christian 
doctrine. Such progress we must make, Dco volente. Stationary we 
cannot remain ; we must either advance or recede. But guard well, I 


. . 2o/ ' 
| beseech you, against receding ; advvatoy yay, etc., vs. #&—8.’ 


Two things, at least, must be admitted. The one, that the apostle 
taxes them with negligence in regard to an enlarged acquaintance with 
\ religious doctrine ; the other, that he cautions them against the awful 
| consequences of apostasy. Now does it not follow, that he considers 
the state of comparative ignorance in which they were, as exposing 
them in a peculiar manner to apostatize; and consequently, that he con- 
nects the danger of apostasy with reproof in regard to religious igno- 
rance, so as to rouse them to more effort in order to acquire a better ac- 
quaintance with the grounds and principles of Christianity? And is 
not all this founded in the nature of things as they have always existed? 
Are not the ignorant most easily led away by impostors and heretical 
teachers? The men who have prohibited the use of the Scriptures by 
the people at large, and who labour to suppress the diffusion of general 
knowledge in order that the mass of the people may be kept in igno- 
rance and so be moulded by them at their will, have well understood the 
principle to which I have alluded. 

The caution of the apostle, then, I consider as amounting to this; 


‘ «Guard well against ignorance of Christian doctrines, for lapse is easy 


to the ignorant, and recovery exceedingly difficult or impossible.’ 1 


κ΄ 


cannot, therefore, follow the usual method of expounding either the 


verse before us, or the subsequent context. 

Φερώμεϑα, the middle voice of φέρω, often signifies to go, to come, 
to travel, to move in any manner or in any direction. Here geowpeda 
means, to advance, to go forward. 

My πάλιν ϑεμέλιον καταβαλλόμενοι μετανοίας, not again laying 


974 neBREws VI. I, 2. 


the foundation with respect to repentance; not again commencing (as 
we once have done) with the first elements of Christian doctrine, e. g. 
the subject of repentance, ete. M/eravoias here means, the subject or 
doctrine of μετάνοια, see v. 2. The writer does not here speak of re- 
pentance as an act, but as a doctrine or subject of consideration ; and 
so of the other subjects mentioned in the sequel. That repentance was 
inculcated as an initial doctrine and duty of Christianity, may be seen 
by consulting the following passages, Matt. 4:17. Mark 1:15. Acts 
2:38. 17: 90, and others of the same kind. 

‘Ano νεχρῶν ἔργων, from deadly works; i.e. in respect to works 
which cause death, misery, or condemnation ; comp. 9: 14, and τοῦ 
ϑανάτου in 2:14. Or νεκροῖς may be interpreted as meaning sinful, 
vicious; as in Eph.5:14. Rom. 6:13. 11:15. Rev.3:1. It is 
not important which of these senses is adopted. ‘The one implies the 
other. 

Kai πίστεως ἐπὶ ϑεόν, faith in God or in respect to God. That 
this is an elementary principle of Christianity, is evident from the na- 
ture of the thing, as well as from Mark 11: 22. John 14:1. Heb. 11: 
6, and many other passages of the New Testament. Here, however, 
by faith in God is to be understood faith in the declarations which 
God has made to men respecting his Son, the Saviour of the world; 
comp. Acts 16: 31. 

(2) Δαπτισμὼν διδαχῆς the doctrine of baptisms. Here the word 
διδαχῆς is supplied by the writer; and I regard it as implied, before 
the preceding μετανοίας and πίστεως. Some interpreters, however, 
point the text thus, βαπτισμών, διδαχῆς, i.e. of baptisms, of [elemen- 
tary] instruction; which is too improbable to need discussion. ‘The 
only difficulty lies in the plural word βαπτεσμῶν ; since we know of 
only one Christian baptism. Hence Schleusner and many other critics 
refer Ganteouos only to the ceremonial washings of the Jews, in all 
the cases where it occurs; and they suppose that βάπτισμα is the only 
appropriate term, with which the rite of Christian baptism is designated. 
But what has the apostle to do here with Jewish ceremonial rites, as 
the first elements of Christian doctrine? Plainly nothing ; unless it 
be, that Jewish baptisms, or the baptism of John, are alluded to as be- 
ing brought into comparison with Christian baptism, and adjudged ; 
which is a possible, perhaps a probable sense ; and so Vater, Kuinoel, 
Burton, and Bloomfield. 

Another explanation is, that βαπτισμῶν does not differ in any impor- 
tant respect from βαπτίισμοῦ. So in John 1: 13, stands the plural 


HEBREWS VI. 2. OID 


αἱμάτων; in 1 Cor. 7:2, τὰς πορνείας ; in2 Cor. 7: 8, καρδίαις ; all 
with the same sense as the singular, ineach case. See many like cases, 
in Glass. Philo]. Sac. I. p. 62, seq. So the plural number of verbs is 
often employed, when the subject is indefinite and of the singular num- 
ber; e. g. Mark 5: 35, comp. Luke 8: 49. Comp. also Heb. 9: 17, 
ἐπὶ νεχροῖς. Storr supposes βαπεισμῶν to be used here in a kind of 
distributive sense, as the Hebrew plural often is; so that the sentiment 
is, ‘ the doctrine that every believer must be baptized.’ But however 
this may be, no great stress can be laid upon the use of the plural, as 
there are so many examples where it means no more than the singular 
would do. Accordingly the Syriac Version has the singular here. In 
regard to the doctrine of baptism being an elementary doctrine, there 
can be no difficulty. The rite itself was an inztiatory one, for all who 
professed to be Christians. 

"Enveoewg te χειρῶν, imposition of hands. It is a very palpable 
mistake, into which many Christians fall, who are not well acquainted 
with the rites of the primitive church, to suppose that imposition of 
hands was practised only in the case of ordaining persons to the holy 
ministry. It was common for the apostles to bestow extraordinary gifts 
upon converts to Christianity, immediately after their baptism, by the 
imposition of hands. See Acts 2: 38, λήψεσϑε τὴν δωρεὰν τοῦ ἁγίου 
πνεύματος, comp. Acts 8: 14—19. 19:1—6. Hence ἐπεϑέσεως 
χειρῶν is reckoned as one of the things, the knowledge of which was 
communicated at an early stage of the Christian profession. 

* Avaoraceng τὲ νεκρῶν, of the resurrection of the dead. Storr and 
others understand this here, only of the resurrection of the pious. But 
I apprehend the sense is general; as in John 5: 28,29. Comp. Matt. 
22:31. Acts4:2. A general resurrection of the bodies of men, is a 
doctrine, which, if not left undecided by the Old Testament, is at least 
left in obscurity. The Jews of the apostle’s time were divided in their 
opinion respecting it. Hence it was insisted on with great earnestness 
by Christian preachers, as belonging to the peculiar and elementary 
doctrines of Christianity. It was connected, by them, with the account 
which every man is to render of himself to God ; and such an accoun- 
tability is a fundamental doctrine of the Christian religion. 

Kai κρίματος αἰωνίου, and of a judgment the consequences of which 
are eternal. In such a sense is λύτρωσις said to be αἰωνία, in 9: 12; 
and διαϑήκη to be αἰωνία, in 13:20. Both the resurrection and the 
judgment, in this case, pertain to the righteous and to the wicked. It 
is the general doctrine of a resurrection, and of responsibility and re- 


3716) 5 HEBREWS VI. 2—4. 


ward at the tribunal of God, which the writer means to describe. 
These doctrines were among those that were first preached, when men 
were to be instructed in the elements of Christianity; see Acts 17: 91. 
10:42. Rom. 2: 16. Matt. 25:31 seq. In regard to the e¢ernal con- 
sequences of judgment, see Matt. 25: 46. John 5:29. Dan. 11: ὦ. 
2 Thess. 1:9. Matt. 18:8. Mark 9: 45, 48. 

(3) Kai τοῦτο... ὁ ϑεός, and this will we do, if God permit ; i.e. 
we will advance in Christian knowledge, go on ἐπὶ τελεεύότητα, should 
God be pleased to spare our lives and afford us continued opportunity 
of so doing. The frequency with which the writer of this epistle uses 
the first person plural (κοίνωσις), is worthy of remark. It gives a 
more delicate cast to his reproofs, his comminations, and his exhorta- 
tions. 

(4) Addvarov γάρ, for it is impossible, i. e. we will go forward in 
the attainment of what belongs to Christians, and not recede; for it ts 
impossible, viz. that those who recede and apostatize should be recov- 
ered from their lapse, as the sequel avers. In this method of interpre- 
tation, the meaning of γάρ is sufficiently evident. But does ἀδύνατον 
here imply absolute impossibility, or only great difficulty? The latter, 
Storr and many other critics reply. ΤῸ vindicate this sentiment, they 
appeal to Mark 10: 25, 27, and to the parallel passages in the other 
evangelists. But this appeal is not satisfactory. In Matt. 19: 23 seq. 
Mark 10: 23 seq. and Luke 18: 24 seq. (all relating to the same oc- 
currence), Jesus is represented as saying, “πῶς δυσχόλος shall a rich 
man enter into the kingdom of God!” He then adds, “It is easier for 
a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man 
to enter the kingdom of God.” His disciples are astonished at this, 
and ask, ‘How is it possible, that any one [any rich man] can be 
saved, τίς ἄρα δύναται σωϑῆναι; Jesus replies, ‘‘ With men this is 
ἀδύνατον; but with God all things are duvere.” Surely he does not 
mean merely that this is very difficult with men, but that it is}absolute- 
ly beyond their power to accomplish it. 

The other examples of the use of this word in the New Testament, 
are not at all adapted to favour the exegesis of Storr; 6. g. Acts 14: 8. 
Rom. 8: 8. 15: 1, where the word, however, is figuratively employed. 
But if the writer of the epistle to the Hebrews is to be compared with 
himself, then is it quite certain that ἀδύνατον will not bear the qualified 
sense which Storr puts upon it. Comp. Heb. 6:18. 10: 4. IL: 6, all 
clear cases of absolute impossibility, not of mere relative difficulty. 
These are all the instances in which the word is found, in the New 


HEBREWS VI, 4. 477 


“Testament. Nor willa resort to classic usage any better defend the in- 
terpretation of Storr. 

Besides, if it could be shewn that such a qualified sense were agree- 
able to the usus loquendi, in some cases, and therefore possible, a com- 
parison with Heb. 10,: 26—31, would destroy all appearance of proba- 
bility that such a sense is to be admitted here. If there “‘ remains no 
more sacrifice for sin” (Heb. 10: 26) for those who have apostatized, 
then is there no hope of salvation for them; as is clear from Heb. 10: 
28—31. Moreover, to say merely that it is very dificult to recover the 
lapsed Christians of whom the ‘apostle is going to speak, would be at 
,variance with the imagery employed to describe them and the fate that 
awaits them, in vs. 7,8. For all these reasons, such an explanation of 
ἀδύνατον cannot be admitted. : 

Tous ἅπαξ φωτισϑέντας, those who have been once enlightened, i.e. 
instructed in the principles of Christianity. So φωτίζω in John 1: 9. 
Eph. 3: 9. Heb. 10: 32. In all the other passages of the New Testa- 
ment where this word occurs, it is employed in the sense of shining upon, 
throwing light upon, disclosing. It does not (in itself considered) im- 
ply saving illumination, but illumination or instruction simply as to the 
principles of the Christian religion. 

Τευσαμένους τετῆς δωρεᾶς ἐπουρανίου, and have tasted of the heav- 
enly gift. Τευσαμένους, tasted, does not mean extremis labris leviter 
degustare, i.e. merely to-sip-or simply to apply for once to the palate 
so as just to perceive the taste of a thing; but it means the full enjoy- 
ment, perception, or experience of a thing. When the Greek writers 
wish to communicate the former idea, they add χείλεσιν ἄχροις to the 
phrase ; 8. g..‘‘ They are witnesses, οἱ μὴ) χείλεσιν ἄχροις γευσάμενοι 
τῆς φιλοσοφίας ahha... . ἑστεαϑέντες, who have not only tasted with 
the extreme part of the lips [sipped] philosophy, but... . feasted up- 
on it,” Philo. Lib. 1. de Monarchia. p. 816. So Chrysostom, ἄχροις 
τοῖς χείλεσιν γεύσασϑαι, Hom. on Johan. 5:19. But when a full ex- 
perience or perception of any thing is meant, γεύομαι is used simply ; 
e.g. οἱ γευσάμενον τῆς ἀρετῆς, Philo. de Abraham. oper. I. p. 14. So 
τοὺ ἀϑανάτου γνώσεως γεύσασϑαι, Clem. Rom. I. 38. In the New 
Testament, ϑανάτου yeveoOar means, to experience death; e. σι, Matt. 
16: 28. Mark 9: 1. Luke 9: 27. John 8: 52. Heb. 2:9. Comp. also 
Luke 14: 24. 1 Pet. 2:3. So Herod. VI. 5, γεύεσϑαν ἐλευϑερίας, to 
experience [to enjoy] freedom. Pindar, Nem. Od. V. 596, πόνων ysveo- 
Bau, to undergo toils. Soph. Trach. 1108, ἄλλων τὲ μόχϑων μυρίων 


n> 


37 neBrews VI. 4, 5. 


ἐγευσάμην, I have suffered a thousand other evils. So the Hebrew 
psy, Prov. 31: 18. Ps. 34: 9. 

But what is the heavenly gift which they have enjoyed, or the bene- 
fits of which they have experienced? Some have explained it as being 
Christ himself, by comparing it with John 4:10. But it is doubtful 
whether δωρεάν there means Christ. It is more probable that it means 
benefictum, i. e. the kindness or favour which God bestowed, in vouch- 
safing an opportunity to the Samaritan woman to converse with the 
Saviour. Others have represented δωρεάν as being the extraordinary 
gift of the Holy Spirit to Christians, in the primitive age of Christianity ; 
and they have compared the phrase here with πνεῦμα ἅγιον, in Acts 
8: 19, which means the special gifts of the Spirit, and which in 8: 20 
is called τὴν δωρεὰν τοῦ ϑεοῦ. But the objection to this is, that the 
sequel of our text contains a repetition of the same idea, once at least, 
if not twice.—For these reasons, I prefer the interpretation which 
makes δωρεὰς ἐπουρανίου the same here as χλήσεως ἐπουρανίου in 3: 
1, i.e. the proffered blessings or privileges of the gospel. The sense is 
ε then plain and facile ; (1) They had been instructed in the elementary 
doctrines of Christianity, φωτισϑέντας. (2) They had enjoyed the 
_ privileges or benefits of living under a Christian dispensation, i. 6. the 
| means of grace which the gospel afforded; and this is truly δωρεὰ 
ἐπουράνιος. I much prefer this mode of interpretation to any of the 
others. 

Kai μετόχους γενηθϑέντας πνεύματος ἁγίου, and have been made 
partakers of the Holy Spirit. TI understand this of the extraordinary 
gifts and influences of the Spirit, which the primitive Christians en- 
joyed, and which were often bestowed by the impesition of the apostles’ 
hands. See above on ἐπεϑέσεως te χειρῶν, inv.2. 7Τενηϑέντας isa 
more unusual word, in such a connection as the present, than yevome- 
voug; but still there are sufficient examples to shew, that occasional 
custom sanctions the use of it in such cases as the present. 

(5) Kai καλὸν γευσαμένους Geov ῥῆμα and have tasted the good 
word of God, i.e. enjoyed the consolations administered, or the hopes 
excited, by the divine promises which the gospel proffers. Ζευσαμένους 
(as above) experienced, known by experience. Above, it is construed 
with the Gen. after it; here with the Acc.; both according to Greek 
usage, although the former method predominates. 

Καλὸν... ϑεοῦ ῥῆμα, the divine promise, i.e. of good. So 210 727 
means, in Jer. 29: 10. 33: 14; also in Joshua 21: 45. 23: 14, 15, in 
which last verse it is opposed to 9 24, promise of evil, commination. 


HEBREWS VI. 5, 6. 379 


Καλὸν ῥῆμα means the word which respects good, i.e. the promise of 
blessings or favours. So Paul calls the gospel, ἐπαγγελίαν ϑεοὺ ἐν 
Χριστῷ, 2 Cor. 1: 20. I prefer this simple method of explanation to 
all others. The gradation, moreover, of the discourse is more percepti- 
ble, than if ῥῆμα be here construed as indicating merely εὐαγγέλιον, 
which would make the whole clause to signify nearly, if not exactly, 
the same as ἅπαξ φωτισϑέντας, or at least as γευσαμένους δωρεᾶς 
ἐπουρανίου. 

“Ἱυνάμεις τὲ μέλλοντος αἰῶνος, Kuinoel and Bretschneider render, 
bona aevi futuri vel imperii Messiae ; understanding δυνάμεις as mean- 
jng facultates in the sense of opes ; which I should think to be a very 
doubtful sense of the word. Others give it the sense of miracles, etc. ; 
for such a sense of δύναμες is frequent in the New Testament; see 
Matt. 7: 22. 11: 20, 21, 23. 13:58. Mark 6:4. Luke 10: 13. Acts 
2:22, al. But how will this differ much, if any, from the sense given 
to μετόχους... πνεύματος ἀγίου 2 It is truly a difficult phrase, and, on 
τ the whole, I feel inclined to give it the following sense, viz. the influen- 
ces of the world to come,i.e. of the gospel dispensation; see on 2: 5. 
There can be no doubt that δύναμες means influence, i. e. virtue or 
power exerted, etc. I take it here in its most general sense, and so as 
comprehending whatever good or beneficial influence the particulars 
already named did not comprise. 

Thus interpreted, there is a regular gradation in the whole passage. 
(1) They had been taught the principles or doctrines of Christianity. 
(2) They had enjoyed the privileges or means of grace, which the new 
religion afforded. (8) Various gifts and graces had been bestowed on 
them by the Spirit. (4) They had cherished the hopes which the 
promises of the gospel inspire. (5) They had experienced those pow- 
ers or influences by which the gospel was shewn to be a religion from 
God, and adapted to render them happy, comp. 2:4. Thus they had 
the fullest evidence, internal and external, of the divine origin and na- 
ture of the Christian religion. Consequently if they apostatized from 
it, there remained no hope of their recovery. 

(6) Kai παραπεσόντας, and have fallen away, have made defection 
from, viz. from the gospel, or from all the experience and evidence be- 
fore mentioned ; παραπίπτω governing the Genitive. ‘The connection 
stands thus: «ἀδύνατον yao τοὺς anak φωτισϑέντας .. . γευσαμένους 
TE... . καὶ γενηϑέντας .... καὶ γευσαμένους .. . καὶ παραπεσόντας. 
In compound verbs, παρά is often taken to denote deterioration; 6. g. 
παραφρωνεῖν, desipere; τιαραλογίξεσϑαν, male ratiocinari ; παραρυϑ- 


950 HEBREWS VI. 6. 


μίζειν, deformare; so παραπίπτειν, deficere ab. The falling away 
or defection which is here meant, is a renunciation of Christianity and 

a return to Judaism. This implies, of course, a return to a state of 

active enmity and hostility to the Christian religion ; for such was the 

Judaism of the times when our epistle was written. 

Πάλιν ἀνακαινίζειν εἰς μετάνοιαν, again to be renewed by repent- 
ance. Π|άλιν should be joined to ἀνακαενίξειν, not only by common 
usage in respect to the position of an adverb when placed immediately 
before the verb which it qualifies, but the sense here requires it. Kui- 
noel says: Particula πάλιν redundat. But where he gets any authority 
for such a construction, in a case like the present, I know not. The 
writer does not, indeed, mean to say, ‘Those who have a second time 
fallen away ;’ but that ‘ those who fall away cannot be again or a second 
time brought to repentance.’ Drusius, Cappell, Abresch, and others, 
take ἀνακαινίζειν here in the passive sense, as equivalent to ἀνακαενί- 
ζεσϑαι, and construe it in connection with what precedes in this man- 
ner: ‘It is impossible for those who have been once instructed, ete., ¢o 
be renewed to repentance.’ The simple grammatical construction of 
ἀνακαινίζειν, as it now stands in the active voice, is thus: ‘It is impos- 
sible again to renew by repentance such as have been once instructed, 
etc. If the latter method of construing the sentence be adopted, it is_ 
natural to ask, Who is the subject of the verb ἀνακαενίζειν 7 i.e. who 
is the agent that is to produce this renovation? Is it God, i. 6. the Holy 
Spirit, or Paul, or others? Bretschneider (Lex.) understands the word 
in an active sense, and supposes that Christian teachers are the agents 
to whom the writer refers. Storr renders it indefinitely, “Man kann 
unmoglich wieder bessern,” one cannot possibly produce another amend- 
ment. But instead of saying one cannot, in this case, I should prefer 
understanding ἀνακαινίζειν in an impersonal sense, and rendering it in 
English by our passive verb; since many verbs used impersonally con- 
vey a passive sense. See my Heb. Gramm. § 500. Note 2. 

There is still another construction which may be made of the pas- 
sage, and which is a very common Greek one; viz. πάλεν ἀναχκαινίζειν 
τοὺς anak φωτισϑέντας..... καὶ παραπεσόντας, advvator, to renew, 
or the renewal of, persons once instructed... and who have apostatized, 
ts impossible. In this case the Infinitive ἀναχαινίξευν is used as a noun, 
and makes the subject of the proposition. ‘This would afford the same 
sense as that which was last suggested above. 

Eig μετάνοιαν, with respect to repentance ; Chrysostom, Erasmus, 
and others, by repentance. £3 with the Accusative, sometimes signifies 


HEBREWS VI. 6. 351 


the manner or means, in which or by which a thing is done; 6. g. Mark 
0:34. Acts 7:53. But here it may be translated, in respect to, with 
regard to, a sense which is very common to the word. Construed as it 
is in the version which I have made, the sense will be, “ΤῸ renew them 
so that they will repent.’ See Excursus XII. 

᾿“ἹἽνασταυροῦντας ἑαυτοῖς τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ϑεοῦ, since they have cruci- 
fied for themselves the Son of God. Chrysestom construes ἀνασταὺυ- 
oovrtas as meaning madey σταυροῦντας : and so our English transla- 
tors, and many others. But this is not conformable to common Greek 
usage. //va, in composition, merely augments the intensity of a verb, 
if indeed it produces any effect upon its signification ; for sometimes this 
is hardly perceptible, e.g. ἀνακρίνειν, ἀναϑεωρεῖν, avanhnocer, etc. 
That the word in question is to be figuratively taken, is plain from the 
nature of the case. Actual plysical crucifixion is out of the question. 
It means, then, to treat with the greatest ignominy and contempt. Ὺ 

But what does ἑαυτοῖς mean? It is susceptible of two interpreta- 
tions. (1) As Dativus incommodi, i.e. to their own hurt, shame etc. ; 
so Storr. See Winer’s N. T. Gramm. §31. ed. 3. (2) It may be con- 
strued as Hebrew pronouns in the Dat. frequently are, viz. as péeonastic ; 
6. 5. T2772, 80 for thyself, i.e. go; i> bi, he has fled for himself, 
i.e. he has fled; Heb. Gramm. ὁ 545. I incline to the latter mode of 
explanation. Perhaps the shade of idea is, “ Crucifying, so far as they 
are concerned,’ or ‘they themselves being concerned in the transaction 
of crucifying.’ 

Kai παραδειγματίζοντας, and exposed him to public shame ; comp. 
Mat. 1: 19. By renouncing their adherence to Christianity, they 
would openly declare their belief that Christ was only an impostor, and 
of course that he suffered justly as a malefactor. By returning again to 
Judaism, they would approve of what the Jews had done; and thus they 
would, as it were, crucify Christ, and expose him to be treated by 
unbelievers with scorn and contumely. Every one knows, that an apos- 
tate from a good cause gives new occasion, by an act of apostasy, for 
the enemies of that cause to utter all the malignity of their hearts 
against it. In this sense apostates expose the Saviour to public in- 
famy, when they renounce all regard for him, and join with those who 
view him as an impostor and a malefactor. 

The two participles, avaotavgovrtas.... καὶ παραδειγματίζοντας, 
I regard as grammatically connected with the preceding ones thus: 
τοὺς ἅπαξ φωτισϑέντας.. . .. καὶ παραπεσόντας.... ἀνασταυροῦντας 
καὶ παραδειγματίζοντας ; the two latter words being in apposition with 


49 


332 HEBREWS VI. 7. 


the preceding participles, and added for the sake of giving intensity to 
the whole description. On this account χαί is omitted before ove- 
σταυροῦντας. 

(7) 1 ὴ yao....verov, for the earth which drinketh in the rain that 
frequently comes upon it. Teg illustrantis, i. 6. here introducing a 
comparison in order to illustrate and confirm what had been said. Ὁ In 
is used for land cultivated or uncultivated. Here it designates the 
former; as is evident from the sequel of the sentence. The image of 
the earth being thirsty and drinking in the showers, is common in ma- 
ny languages. 

Kai τίχτουσα βοτάνην, and produceth fruits. Tixrovoe is often ap- 
plied, by classical writers, to the production of fruits. “οτάνην, like 
the Hebrew avy, here means any kind of grain, any produce of vege- 
tation, which is fitted for the service of man. But this use is Hebraistic. 
By classic usage βοτάνη means herbage or vegetation, not including 
bread-corn. 

‘Luveror ἐχείνοις Ov δὺς γεωργεῖται, useful to those on account of 
whom it is cllltivated. ”LuOetov means, in its primary sense, well situ- 
ated, well located; e. g. it is applied to a convenient harbour for ships, 
etc. Useful, appropriate, etc., are secondary meanings which the word 
frequently has. 40 οὕς, on account of whom. That this is the usual 
signification of διὰ with the Acc., ali will acknowledge ; and as the sense 
demands no departure here from the usual construction, it is better to 
retain it than to translate by whom. 

MerohlapPBaves εὐλογίας ἀπὸ τοῦ ϑεοῦ, lit. receiveth blessings from 
God. But what is the meaning of this? Is it that the earth is, when 
thus fruitful, contemplated with satisfaction or complacency by its Crea- 
tor? Or does it mean, ‘The earth which thus produces useful fruits, 
is rendered stil! more fruitful by divine beneficence? ‘The latter seems 
better to accord with the Hebrew idiom. Εἰ. g. when Jacob approach- 
es Isaac, clad in Esau’s perfumed garments, Isaac says, The odour of 
my son, is like the odour of a field which God has blessed, i. 6. of a fruit- 
ful field with blossoming herbage. So, on the contrary, the curse of the 
earth in Gen. 3: 17, is explained in v. 18 by adding, ‘‘ Thorns and this+ 
tles shall it bring forth unto thee.” In Mark 11: 14, our Saviour says 
of the barren fig tree, “‘ Let no one ever henceforth eat any fruit of 
thee ;” to which Peter afterwards alluding, says, ‘Lo! the fig tree 
which thou didst curse, Mark 11:21.” In 2 Cor. 9: 6, Paul says, “ He 
who soweth ἐπ᾿ εὐλογίαις, bountifully, shall reap ἐπ᾿ εὐλογίαις, bounti- 
fully.” Agreeably to this idiom, the phrase in question might be ex- 


HEBREWS VI. 7,8. 383 


plained, is rendered still more fertile, or productive, by God. Most 
commentators of note have adopted such an interpretation. I have hes- 
itated to receive it, because the metaphor thus explained does not seem 
altogether adapted, to the object for which it is used. The image of 
the fruitful earth, however, is designed to signify, ‘Christians who bring 
forth fruits under divine cultivation.’ Supposing then that such Chris- 
tians are here designated, (as plainly is the case), does the writer mean 
tosay, that they will be rendered still more fruitful in good works?) Or 
does he mean, that when they thrive under the cultivation which they 
enjoy, they will obtain divine approbation and complacency? The lat- 
ter interpretation would seem better to accord with the words of the 
apostle, at first view ; but the former coincides better with his present 
design, which is, to urge Christians on to higher attainments. 

(8) “Lxqeoovoe δὲ [sc. ἡ γῆ] .... ἐγγύς, but [the earth] which bring- 
eth forth thorns and briers, is refuse and near to utter rejection, its end 


will be burning. Κατάρα, exsecratio, maledictio, extrema atque dirisst- 
ma devotio.. Such barren ground, producing nothing but thorns and 
briers, is not only useless to the owners, i. 6. refuse land, but is given 
up or devoted by them to be over-run with fire, and to have all its 
worthless productions consumed. As in the former case, blessing con- 
sists in rendering more fruitful, so here the curse consists in giving up 
to utter and entire barrenness, 1. e. in relinquishing all efforts at culti- 
vation, such ground as will produce nothing valuable. The blessing 
and the curse stand opposed, as well cultivating land and rendering it 
fruitful is opposed to giving it over to utter barrenness. 

* He τὸ τέλος εἰς καῦσιν, whose end is burning. Eig xavow is He- 
ee corresponding to the use of the Infinitive nominascens, with the 
prefix 5, Heb. Gramm. § 521. 522. So Is. 44: 15, 9223....5° 
 (LXX. ἕνα ἢ .... εἰς καῦσιν), and it shall be burned. This interpreta- 
tion iprrneccatia the ezecration of barren land (κατάρα) as ending in 
καῦσις, i. 6. the curse is carried into effect by burning the land over. 
On the whole I must refer ἧς to γῆ. 

Thus construed the whole passage affords a very striking image of 
the condition of the Hebrews. ‘ You,’ the writer says, ‘are enjoying 
abundant means of spiritual improvement. If you act in a manner wor- 
thy of such privileges, God will approve and bless. But if you disobey 
the gospel, and become wholly unfruitful in respect to Christian graces, 
then you are exposed to final rejection and endless punishment. The 
doom of all apostates is near, and the sequel will be tremendous. 

But lest what he had now said might wear the appearance of too 


384 HEBREWS VI. 8S—10. 


much severity and seem to imply a great degree of distrust or want of 
confidence in respect to those whom he addressed, the writer proceeds 
to shew what is the real state of his feelings towards them, and that he 
has, out of affection for them and solicitude for their highest welfare, so 
plainly and fully set before them the danger to which they were expo- 
sed. 

(9) Πεπείσμεϑα δὲ .... λαλοῦμεν, but we confidently hope for better 
things respecting you, beloved, even those connected with salvation, al- 
though we thus speak. Kosirrove [i.e. πράγματα] I understand as re- 
ferring to what had just been said, in which the conduct and the doom 
of apostates had been represented. Ζεπείσμεϑα κρείττονα then means, 
‘T confidently hope that you will neither imitate the conduct nor under- 
go the doom of apostates, whose end is ἰῷ χαῦσιν. 

"Lyoueva σωτηρίας, lit. near to, conjoined with, salvation. The form 


of expression appears as if it were designed to correspond with the pre- 
ceding χατάρας ἐγγύς ; 1. 6. as apostates are χατάρας ἐγγύες, so those 
who persevere in maintaining the true religion, are ἐχόμενοι σωτηρίας ; 
1. 6. their salvation is at hand, their time of deliverance from trials and 
their season of reward are certain, and will not be long protracted. To 
refer σωτηρίας here merely to the temporal safety of believing Hebrews, 
seems to me very foreign to the object of the writer; although some 
critics of note have done this. 

(10) Ov yao ἄδικος ὁ ϑεός, for God is not unkind, i.e. God is kind. 
Tao introduces a reason here why the writer hopes and trusts that those 
whom he addresses will be saved, viz. because God is so kind, and they 
have exhibited so many fruits of benevolence. The opposite of ἄδικος 
’ is Ofzotos, which, among other meanings, not unfrequently bears that 
of kind, benevolent, indulgent, merciful; see Matt. 1: 19. John 17 : 25. 
1 John 1:9. Soin Hebrew, p-y= and πρὸς often mean hind, kind- 
ness, merciful, mercy, etc. ”Advxog, therefore, may mean unkind, un- 
merciful, etc.; and this sense of the word is most appropriate to the 
passage. Before the Inf. ἐπιλάϑεσθϑαι, wore is to be mentally supplied, 
in order to complete the construction. 

Tov ἔργου ὑμῶν, καὶ τῆς ἀγάπης. Many Codices and most editions 
read, τοῦ ἔργου ὑμῶν zai τοῦ κόπου τῆς ἀγάπης. But Mill, Bengel, 
Griesbach, Knapp, Tittmann, Schott, and others, omit τοῦ κόπου; which, 
however, is defended and received by many critics of good reputation. 
ἔργον and z0m0¢ are not unfrequently joined by the sacred writers ; 
e.g. 1 Thess. 1: 3. Rev. 2:2. 14:13. But the weight of authority 
appears to be against the genuineness of χύπου here. 


nEeBREWwsS VI. 10—12. 385 


Instead of putting a comma after ὑμῶν, we may point the phrase 
thus, τοῦ ἔργου ὑμῶν καὶ τῆς ἀγάπης" regarding τῆς ayanNs as sus- 
taining the place of an adjective in respect to ἔργου. Such construc- 
tions (i. e. Hendiadys) are very common in the sacred writings. ‘The 
translation would then be, your benevolent labour ; or (if this be more 
agreeable) your labour and the benevolence which you have exhibited. 
On the whole, however, I rather prefer making ἔργον refer to the efforts 
which the Hebrew Christians had made, and ἀγάπη to the state of mind 
toward God which they had cherished. I have translated accordingly. 

Eig τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ, toward his name, i.e. toward him, or toward 
Christ. So ὄνομα is often used, viz. for person ; 6. g. Matt.6: 9. John 
17:26. Acts 10: 43. John 20: 31. se 4:10. So tw (name) 
in Hebrew, Ex. 23: 21. 1 Κα. 8:29. 3:2, Ps. 20: 1, et al. saepe. 

Avaxovnoarres .... διακονοῦντες, in ee performed kind offices 
to Christians, and in still performing them. Atazxovem signifies not 
merely to supply the wants of others by pecuniary aid and by alms, 
but also to assist them in any way by offices of humanity and kindness. 
Τὴ this enlarged sense, it seems natural to understand it here. “/yiovs, 
i. e. those who are consecrated to God or to Christ, those who profess 
to be holy; comp. 3: 1. 

(11) 7ὴν αὐτὴν ἐνδείκνυσϑαι σπουδὴν .... τέλους, may exhibit the 
same diligence, respecting a full assurance of hope even to the end, 
i.e. the end of life, or the end of their probationary state ; com. 3: 6. 
Sxovdny, strenuous endeavour, diligent exertion, sedulity. The mean- 
ing is: ‘I wish you to continue your active efforts even to the end of 
your Christian course, so as to acquire or to preserve the full assurance 
of Christian hope.’ Πληροφορία and πληρυφοοέἕω are not employed 
by the classics. I/Ajoogogia means a full burden or lading. If ap- 
plied to a fruit tree, it would designate the fulness or large burden of 
the fruit ; applied to the lading of a vessel, it would denote the fulness 
of the cargo. Phavorinus explains πληροφόρησον by πλήρωσον; and 
in like manner πληθοφορίαν here does not appear to differ from πλήρω- 
μια or πλήρωσιν. The meaning of the writer is: ‘I desire that your 
diligence in good works should be persevered in, so that you may con- 
tinue to cherish a full or confident hope, viz. of salvation, even to the 
end of life. In this way they would be most ΕΠ ἢ guarded 
against apostasy ; ; for he who, on true grounds, cherishes the hope of fu- 
ture glory and reward which the Christian religion encourages, will 
hardly be tempted to abandon his religion and exchange it for another. 

(12) “/va μὴ νωϑροὶ γένησϑε, that ye may not be remiss, viz. in the 


980 HEBREWws VI. 12, 19. 


discharge of your Christian duties. Noi, tardi, segnes, is applied 
either to body or mind, to external actions or internal conceptions. 

Miunroi δὲ τῶν διὰ miotems.... ἐπαγγελίας, but imitators of those, 
who through faith and patient expectation have entered into the posses- 
sion of promised blessings, i. e. who after continued belief (πίστεως) in 
the existence of those blessings, and patient waiting (μαχροϑυμίας) 
until the time of trial is finished for the possession of them, have at last 
realized the object of all their faith and patient expectation. Πίστις 
means here, belief in the reality of proffered future blessedness (see Heb. 
11:1, 2.seq.); and μακροϑυμία the patient waiting for it, amid all the 
troubles and trials of life. Some make a Hendiadys of the words miote- 
ὡς and μαχροϑυμίας, and render them patient faith. I prefer the oth- 
er method of explanation, as communicating a fuller meaning of the 
apostle’s words. 

Αληρονομούντων τὰς ἐπαγγελίας. Kinoovouew, to acquire, to ob- 
tain possession of, see on chap. 1: 4. “Haayyedtag in the plural, in or- 
der to indicate promises of various kinds both in respect to temporal 
and spiritual good, i. e. the proffered blessings which the ancient wor- 
thies did at last enjoy. How directly it was to the writer’s purpose, to 
exhort the Hebrews to persevering faith, and patient waiting for future 
blessings proffered by the Christian religion, is too evident to need any 
illustration. Such a course would be directly opposite to that abandon- 
ment of faith and discouragement of mind, which led to apostasy. 

(13) Τῷ yoo ABouau.... ϑεός, when, for ecample, God had made 
a promise to Abraham. Tao, introduced in such a connection, i. e. be- 
tween the proposal of a doctrine or encouragement, and the relation of 
a fact which is to illustrate it, may well be explained by the phrase, for 
example; as it conveys the same idea in Greek, which these words do 
in English. 

᾿μπεὶ nav οὐδενὸς... .. ἑαυτοῦ, seeing he could swear by no greater, 
he sware by himself. Hiye, could, poterat; comp. Mark 14:8. Luke 
7:42. 12:4. 14: 14. John 14:30. Lucian, Dial. Mort.21. 2, “ Con- 
cerning all these things εἰπεῖν av ἔχοιμι, I could speak.” Elian. Var. 
Hist. I. 25, “1 honour thee ὅπητε καὶ ὅπως ἔχω, in whatever way and 
whenever I can.” 

Kat οὐδενὸς. The Gen. with xara before it, usually follows the 
verb ὄμνυμι, when the object is designated by which a person swears. 
So Aesop. Fab. 68, ἡ) μὲν GUS ὦμνυε κατὰ τῆς “Ιφροδίτης, swore by 

Venus. The Acc. with κατά, or the Dat. with ἔν, may also be used. 

"Quooe καϑ' ἑαυτοῦ, Hebrew AYDW2 %2, Gen. 22:16. The for- 


HEBREWS VI. 14, 15. Biel 


mula of an oath of this kind, is found in Num. 14: 21, 778 ὅπ. So in 
Num. 14: 28, 7477 ON2 ΝΣ ΠΣ and in Deut. 32: 40, boty "258 I, 
I live forever. 

(14) Agyor ἢ pay .... πληϑυνῶ σε, saying, I will greatly bless 
thee, and exceedingly multiply thee, i. 6. I will give thee a numerous off- 
spring. In Gen. 22: 17, which is quoted here, instead of simply πλη- 
ϑυνῶ σὲ, the Hebrew runs thus, ote hi ὃς maw say, L will 
greatly multiply thy seed; but. in Gen. 17: 2, it is ΠΞΝ 583 ἽΝΩΞΙ 
7s, [will multiply thee exceedingly. ‘The apostle appears to unite 
both expressions in the quotation before us. The obvious idea of both 
passages is, ‘I will give thee a very numerous posterity.’ 

"Hf μῆν, certissime, profecto; both words are particles of affirma- 
tion, and being joined they make the affirmation intense. Zuvdoywv 
εὐλογήσω. ... πληϑύνων πληϑυνῶ. Such a reduplication is very 
common in Hebrew, where, for the most part, it denotes intensity, Heb. 
Gramm. ὃ 514. The great frequency of it in the Hellenistic writers, is 
Hebraism ; but still, the formula itself is not without frequent examples 
in Greek writers. HE. g. Lucian. Dial. Menel. sub fine, dav εἶδον. Xen. 
Cyrop. V. πείϑων ἔπεισε. VILL. ὑπακούων ὑπήκουσα. Polyb. εὐχόμε- 
νος ἤυξατο τοῖς ϑεοῖς. Herod. IV. 23, xatagevywr καταφεύγη. Diod. 
Sic. Tom. I. p. 717, καταπέμψας ἔπεμψε. That intensity is designed 
in our text, is clear from consulting the context in Gen. xxi. and xvu. 
ΤΠληϑυνώ is found in what is usually called the second future circum- 
flex. But verbs in 4, “, 7, 0, have no other future; see Buttmann’s 
Gramm. § 101.2; and of course this form is wrongly named second 
future. 

(15) Kal οὕτω poxgoduunoas.... ἐπαγγελίας, and so, having pa- 
tiently waited, he obtained the promised blessing. Καὶ οὕτω may be 
construed as equivalent to zai τότε, or καὶ ἔπειτα, and then, and after- 
wards. So οὕτω in Acts 7:8. 20:11. Rom. 11: 26. Thess. 4: 17. 
Rev. 11:5. Schneider (Lex.), οὕτω, folglich, sonach, Schleusner 
(Lex.), οὕτω, sic tandem, tum demum, deinceps etiam. But I rather 
prefer the sense of so here, which means, in accordance with the prom- 
ises just recited. ᾿Ππέτυχε τῆς ἐπαγγελίας, the noun being in the 
Gen.; for ἐπιτυγχάνω governs either the Gen. or Acc.; see Matth. Gr. 
Gramm. § 363. 5. 

But what was the promised blessing which he obtained? The same, 
I reply, which the preceding context designates, viz. the blessing of a 
posterity which should become numerous. When Abraham was called 
by God out of Haran, and the promise of a numerous posterity made to 


388 neBReEws VI. 15—17. 


him, he was seventy-five years old, Gen. 12: 1—4. Twenty-four years 
elapsed after this, while he was a sojourner in a strange land without any 
fixed place of abode, before the manner in which this promise would be 
fulfilled was revealed to him, Gen. 17: 1—16. It was only when he 
was an hundred years old, that the promised blessing of a son, from 
whom should spring a great nation, was obtained, Gen. 21: 1—5. The 
preternatural birth of such a son, was deemed by Abraham a sufficient 
pledge, on the part of God, that all which he had promised respecting 
him would be fulfilled, Gen. 22: 15—18. Heb. 11: 8—12, 17—19. 
Rom. 4: 17—22. Other blessings besides that of a numerous posterity, 
were connected with the birth of Isaac and the faith of Abraham, Gen. 
xxu. latter part of v. 17 with v. 18. These blessings Abraham did not 
obtain, indeed, by actual possession; but by anticipation, confident 
hope, and unvavering faith in the promises of God; comp. John 8: 56. 
In our text, however, the apostle refers to the promised blessing of a 
son, which, after long waiting, Abraham obtained. 

(16) "Av Poaroe μὲν γὰρ ἐννν ὀμνύουσι, now men swear by one who 
is superior, i.e. men appeal to God, when taking an oath, as a witness 
of their sincerity, and as an avenger of falsehood and perjury. 

Kai πάσης αὐτοῖς... 0 ὅρκος, and the oath for confirmation makes 
an end of all dispute among them ; 1. 6. an oath that the contesting par- 
ties will abide by the terms of amity and concord agreed upon, puts an 
end to the disputes which had existed, the parties relying upon an en- 
gagement of a nature so solemn. An oath, then, is the highest pledge 
of fidelity which a man can give. _4vr07¢ is the Dative after avtcoyi- 
ας, VIZ. ἀντιλογίας [7 ἐστι] αὐτοῖς. , 

Such is the custom of men, when ἀντιλογία, contradiction, question, 
calling in question, dispute, is to be quieted. God has condescended to 
act in a similar way for our encouragement, and to confirm our belief in 
his promises. 

(17) “Lv ᾧ περισσότερον... τῆς ἐπαγγελίας, on account of which 
(i. 6. because an oath removes all dispute or doubt), God, desirous of 
shewing those to whom the promises are made. °Ev ᾧ, on account of 
this, see Wahl on ἐν No. 5. Περισσότερον, abundantly, modo eximio, 
insigniter. ᾿᾿πιδεῖξαι, to demonstrate, to exhibit so as to prove. AAn- 
οονόμοις, i. e. to Christians; comp. 4: 1, 3, 9. 

To ἀμετάϑετον τῆς βουλῆς αὐτοῦ, the immutability of his purpose 
or of his decree ; for the will of God is the decree of God. 

᾿βμεσίτευσεν ὅρκῳ, interposed by an oath. Meovretw means, ac- 
cording to classical usage, to act the part of a mediator, to be an inter- 


nesrews VI. 17, 18. 389 


nuntius, conciliator, between two parties. But here, this sense is impos- 
sible. God is not a mediator between himself and the heirs of the prom- 
ise. The sense of interposing, then becomes a necessary one. So the 
Vulgate, tnterposurt jusjurandum. He made a μεσίτην (so to speak) by 
an oath, interposed an oath between himself and the heirs of promise, 
i.e. he made an oath the means of removing all doubt or question on 
their part, whether he would faithfully perform what he had promised. 

(18) “Jva διὰ δύο πραγμάτων. ... ϑεύν, so that by two immutable 
things, in regard to which it is impossible that God should prove faith- 
less; 1. e. smce men’s doubts are removed by an appeal to an oath, God, 
in condescension to their weakness, has also made confirmation of his 
promises by an oath, so that there might be no possible ground of doubt. 
But what are the two immutable things? His promise and his oath, 
answer almost all the commentators and critics. But there is room to 
doubt the correctness of this interpretation. ‘The apostle in the prece- 
ding context has mentioned two oaths of God, which have respect to the 
salvation of believers. ‘The one is the context immediately preceding, 
v. 13: which, in Gen. 22: 15—18, stands connected with the promise 
of a blessing to all nations (v. 18) through the seed of Abraham, i. e. 
through the Messiah. ‘The other may be the one implied in Heb. 3: 
ΓΕ: where the oath that unbelievers shall be excluded from the rest of 
God, implies of course an assurance of the same nature, that believers 
shall be admitted to it; comp. 4: 5,6. Perhaps however it is more 
probable, that the second oath is that by which the Messiah is constitu- 
ted a high-priest after the order of Melchizedek, Ps, 110: 4, and which 
had been twice adverted to by the writer in the preceding part of his 
epistle, 5: 6,10. This would best agree with the sequel, in 6:20, 
where the writer recurs to the order of Christ’s high-priesthood, and 
thus shews that it was at that time in hismind. Here then are the two 
immutable things, in which believers may confide; viz. first, the oath 
that Abraham should have a Son (the Messiah), in whom all nations 
should be blessed, Gen. 22: 18; secondly, the oath that this Son should 
be high-priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek, Ps. 110: 4. 
These two oaths it is impossible God should disregard ; and the salvation 
of believers, therefore, is adequately and surely provided for. In this 
opinion I find that Storr for substance agrees. 

On the other hand, to represent the promise and the oath to confirm 
the same, as the ‘two immutable things, seems to be inapposite; for the 
writer here states that what is sworn to, even among men, must be re- 
garded as fixed or established. More surely what God has once solemnly 

50 


900 HEBREWS VI. 18. 


declared, can never be annulled. The ἔσο things then which are im- 
mutable, are those referred to in the two different oaths, viz. that in 
Gen. 22: 15—18, and that in Ps. 110: 4. To these the writer had 
repeatedly adverted. 

‘Joyvoay παράκλησιν... ἐλπίδος, we, who have sought a refuge, 
might have stryag persuasion to hold fast the hope which is set before 
us. That is, God has made adequate provision for the salvation of all, 
who prove faithful to the cause of Christ; and he has secured it by 
oaths, made at different times, and on diverse occasions. The certain- 
ty, then, of obtaining the reward promised to fidelity, constitutes a pow- 
erful motive to persevere, for all those who have sought a refuge from 
the power and penalty of sin in the religion of Jesus. Ilagaxdyouv, in 
the sense of comfort, consolation, is common in the New Testament; 
but according to the classical use of the word, it means excitement, ex- 
hortation, persuasion, etc. 'This latter use of the word is common also 
to the New Testament writers; and in this sense I understand it, in 
the verse before us. Consolation, which exegesis Kuinoel and Bloom- 
field prefer, does not seem to me, on the whole, to be so appropriate to 
the writer’s object here as excitement, Anregung (Schneider), persua- 
sion. “foyveay means powerful, i. 6. having great force, proffering 
strong motives. 

Oi καταφυγόντες, we who seek a refuge. Katagevyw means to flee 
toward, to flee to, to flee under, viz. a place of refuge, an asylum; which 
latter is generally designated after the verb. It may be rendered hast- 
en, 1. 6. are eager, to lay hold of, ete. So Kuinoel and Bretschneider. 
But here, οἱ καταφυγόντες seems to be employed as a peripbrasis, in 
order to designate Christians who are seeking a refuge from sin and 
sorrow. In like manner σωζομένους is employed, in Acts 2: 47. 

Kearyoue, to hold fast, to take firm hold of, to grasp with tenacity, 
Hebrew pint. “LAnidog, hope, here means the objects of hope, i.e. the 
objects of Christian hope, for which Christians hope, or which they ex- 
pect; just as ἐπα γελία above means the objects promised, the things 
promised ; and often so, in respect to many other words of a similar 
nature. Προχειμένης, proposed, set forth, is a word which was em- 
ployed in respect to the ἄὥϑλον or prize of victory, in the Grecian 
games. This was said προχεῖσϑαι, to be proposed or set before the 
competitors. So in our text the object of hope, viz. future happiness 
and glory, deliverance from sin and sorrow, is set before all Christians, 
who are καταφυγόντες, seeking a refuge from their guilt and miseries. 


HEBREWS VI. 19. 391 


And the repeated oath of God assures them that such a refuge is to be 
found, and also affords a powerful excitement to seek it. 

(19) Hy ὡς ἄγκυραν... βεβαίαν, which we hold as an anchor of 
the soul, unfailing and firmly fixed ; i. e. which hope we are in posses- 
sion of, ἔχομεν, and it will prove to us, in our troubles and distresses, 
what an anchor of sound materials and firmly fixed will be to a ship in 
a tempest, i. e. it will keep us from “making shipwreck of the faith.” 
Many commentators refer ἣν to παράκλησιν; but it seems to me quite 
contrary to the manifest object of the passage. Hope is often repre- 
sented under the emblem of an anchor, among the heathen writers. 
᾿“Ισφαλῆ means, that which will not fail, i.e. like an anchor of good 
materials, which will not give way. Μεβαίαν means firmly fixed, i.e. 
having a tenacious hold, which cannot be slipped. 

Kai εἰσερχομένην ... . καταπετάσματος, and which enters into that 
within the vail, i.e. which hope enters into the inner sanctuary, the 
sanctum sanctorum where God dwells. Others refer εἐἰσερχομένην to 
ἄγκυραν. ‘The meaning, as I explain the passage, is, that the objects 
of hope are in heaven where God dwells. The apartment within the 
vail of the temple at Jerusalem, was that in which the ark of the cove- 
nant was placed, and also the Cherubim that shadowed the mercy-seat. 
There the glory of God appeared. This inner sanctuary was an em- 
blem of heaven; see Heb. 9: 1—11, 23. 10:1. The phrase ἐσώτερον 
τοῦ καταπετάσματος, here designates that whichis an image or symbol 
of heaven. 

The sentiment of the writer then is as follows; ‘ Hold fast the ob- 
jects of your Christian hope. These will keep you steady in adherence 
to your holy religion, and preserve you, like an anchor, from making 
shipwreck of the faith. These objects of hope are heavenly in their 
nature, 9 élmig... . εἰσερχομένη εἰς τὸ ἐσώτερον τοῦ καταπετάσμα- 
τος... Consequently these objects are immutable, and so ἀσφαλεῖς καὶ 
βέβαιοι, like a good anchor.’ 

“Ὅπου πρόδρομος .... /noovs, whither Jesus our precursor has 
gone, on our account. ἸΤΙρόδρομος .... econddev, I take to mean 
simply that Jesus first led the way into the heavenly sanctuary. So 
Aeschylus, Her. ad Theb. v. 217, moodgomog ἤλϑε, 1.4. προῆλϑε. 
Theodoret makes an appropriate remark on this passage. “‘The wri- 
ter designs to increase their confidence by calling Jesus πρόδρομος; 
for if he is their precursor, and has gone thither on their account, then 
ought Christians to follow after him, so as to attain the end of their 
course,” 'Theod. in loc. 


392 uEBrews VI. 19.—VILI. 1. 


The expression in the latter part of v. 19, εἰσερχομένη εἰς τὸ eowre- 
ρον TOU καταπετάσματος, seems to have been purposely chosen as a 
periphrasis of the heavenly sanctuary, in order to direct the minds of 
the Hebrews to the priesthood of Christ; of which the writer now 
proceeds to treat, after having suspended the consideration of it from 
chap. V. 11. to chap. VI. 19, in order to introduce matter of warning 
and encouragement. It was lawful for the high priest only to enter, 
through the vail, into the inner sanctuary. So Jesus, as high priest of 
the new dispensation, entered the eternal sanctuary above, making an 
expiation of perpetual efficacy for sinners, Heb. 9, 11, 12, 22—26. 


Having ated reproved thom for the little progress which they had made in Christian knowledge, 
5: 11—VI.3; warned them against tke dreadful consequences of abandoning the Christian religion, 
6:4—8; and encouraged them to hold fast their faith and hope even unto the end, as they had the 
example of Abraham, and the oath of God to assure them of an adequate reward, 6: 9—19; the 
writer now returns to make the comparison of Christ as high priest with Melchizedek, whose 
name in connection with that of Christ had beenalready more than once introduced, 5:6, 10. This 
subject he pursues to the end of 7: 25; where he again brings to view the topic broken off at 5: 10, 


and completes what he had to say concerning it in order to prevent its being misunderstood, 
7: 26—28, 


CHAP. VII. 


(1) Οὗτος yao Mehyiledex, now this Melchizedek, i. e. the Melchize- 
dek whom I have already named. Jo is here the sign of resuming a 
topic which had been suspended. 

Βασιλεὺς Σαλήμ. Nearly all the Greek and Latin fathers held this 
place to be the same as Jerusalem ; so Ps. 76: 2 [3], “In Salem is his 
tabernacle,” comp. Gen. 14: 18. The 2oAe/u mentioned in John 3: 
23, was probably a different place from that which our text names; if 
indeed SaAyju is meant, by our author, to designate a place at all. Is it 
not rather an appellative? See the writer’s own interpretation, v. 2. 

‘fegevg τοὺ ϑεοῦ tov ὑψίστου, Hebrew 73.25 >N> 7D, Gen. 14: 
18. It was common among the ancients for a king to be priest also, 
thus uniting the two highest honours among men in his own person. 
The Jewish kings did not do thus so long as the race of David was up- 
on the throne, because the priesthood was confined to the tribe of Levi. 
But the Maccabees did it; Joseph. Antiq. XIII. 19, comp. Mace. in 
the Apocrypha. Among foreign nations this was very common. In 
reference to this double honour, Peter calls Christians βασίλειον ἱερά- 


HEBREWS VII. 1—3. 393 


en. 

How highly the Jews of the apostle’s day estimated the honour of 
priesthood, may be seen from Philo; who says, “The law of kingly 
office applies to priests εἰς σεμνότητα καὶ τιμὴν, in regard to dignity 
and honour, de Legat. ad Caium, p. 832.” In the same book, he re- 
presents the Jewish people as regarding “the high priesthood to be as 
much above the kingly office, as God is more exalted than men.” All 
this serves to shew that the apostle, by exhibiting and proving the 
priesthood of Christ, not only pointed out the way in which pardon of 
sin had been effected, but also designed to contribute much towards 
-causing the Messiah to be honoured in the view of the Hebrews. 

In calling Melchizedek a priest of the most high God, the Scripture 
designs to exhibit him as a true priest of the true God, who is maker 
and lord of heaven and earth, Gen. 14: 19, 22. 

Ὃ συναντήσας... εὐλογήσας αὐτόν, who met Abraham returning 
from the overthrow of the [confederate] kings, and blessed him; see 
Gen. 14: 17—20. 

(9) Qu καὶ dsxarny....’ABoucu, to whom also Abraham gave a 
tenth part of all, viz. a tenth ἀπὸ πάντων τῶν ἀκροϑινίων, of all the 
spoils (see v. 4), which he had taken from the confederate kings whom 
he had discomfited, Gen. 14: 14—16, 20. Aexarny agrees with 
οῖραν understood. 

Πρῶτον μὲν ἑρμενευόμενος, βασιλεὺς δικαιοσύνης, by interpreta- 
tion [his name] means, first, RIGHTEOUS KING. Μασιλεὺς δικαιοσύνης 
resembles the formulas, God of mercy, God of glory, etc., instead of 
merciful God, glorious God, ete ; which are common indeed in all lan- 
guages, but more especially in the Hebrew. But Ernesti, Kuinoel, and 
others, construe the phrase here as meaning ‘a King who renders his 
subjects righteous or upright.’ But I doubt whether a Hebrew would 
have so understood it; and in fact Josephus says it means βασιλεις 
δίκαιος, Antiq. I. 10. 2. 

βπειτα δὲ καὶ βασιλεὺς... .. εἰρήνης, and then king of Salem, 
which means, king of peace, i. e. peaceful king, or king who is ἃ peace- 
maker. 

(3) ᾿Ζπάτωρ, ἀμήτωρ, having neither father nor mother, i. 6. re- 
corded in the sacred genealogies ; or perhaps, whose father and mother 
were not of kingly or priestly rank. These words were applied Literally 
by the Greeks, to some of their gods; then figuratively, to those who 


904 HEBREWws VIL. 3. 


were orphans, and to those whose parents were obscure and of low ori- 
gin. Thus Livy, IV. 3, “nullo patre natus,” which he says respecting 
a person of ignoble descent. So Horace, Serm. I. 6, 10, “ nullis majo- 
ribus natos.” Philo calls Sarah ἀμήτορα, probably because her mother 
is not mentioned in the sacred records. And in such a sense the apos- 
tle appears to call Melchizedek, ἀπάτωρ and ἀμήτωρ. The explana- 
tion of these terms is to be found (as one may easily believe) in the 
word ἀγενεαλόγητος, without any genealogy, viz. of whose genealogy 
no mention is made in Scripture. 

The Arabians say of a man who has by his own efforts procured an 
exalted place of honour, and who is descended from ignoble parents, 


x Lyf υ he has no father, i.e. he is not named from his father, or 
derives not his titles and honours from his father. Michaelis prefers 
the explanation which this idiom would afford, in respect to the passage 
under examination. But the other seems preferable, on account of the 
explanation which the writer himself has made, by adding ἀγενεαλόγη- 
τος. See Schleusner and Wahl on ἀπάτωρ and ομήτωρ. 

Mire ἀρχὴν .... ἔχων, having neither beginning of days nor end of 
life, i. e. whose time of birth or death is not related; or rather, who 
as high priest has no limited time assigned for the commencement and 
expiration of his office, for so the following clause leads us to interpret 
this expression. ‘The Levitical priests were limited in their service ; 
see Num. 4: 3, 23; 35, 43, 47, (comp. Num. 8: 24, 25). Ζωῆς, ac- 
cording to the latter mode of interpretation, refers to the life of Melchi- 
zedek as priest, i. 6. the time of his priesthood. Zw) is often equiva- 
lent in sense to καερὸς ζωῆς, the season or time which one lives. The 
meaning of the writer then is, that Melchizedek’s priesthood was lim- 
ited to no definite time, 1. 6. he was sacerdos perpetuus, a priest without 
limitation of office. So the Latins say, Dictator perpetuus, etc. 

‘Agwmorwmevos 02... . διηνεκές, but like to the Son of God—re- 
maineth a priest perpetually. The sacred writer, in Ps. 110: 4, says 
of the Messiah, that he is ἘΞ 95 72, Sept. ἱερεὺς εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, i. 4. 
εἰς τὸ διηνεκὲς; and then adds, “after the order of Melchizedek.” 
First, then, Christ is asserted by the Psalmist to be a perpetual priest ; 
and next, to confirm or explain this assertion, it is added that he is so 
according to the order of Melchizedek. The implication is, of course, 
that Melchizedek is perpetual priest; for this is a special point of the 
comparison. ‘The apostle means to say, in our text, that inasmuch as 
Melchizedek is understood to have a perpetual priesthood, and since 
the priesthood of the Son of God is affirmed, in the 110th Psalm, to be 


neBReEws VIL. 3. 395 


like his; so it follows of course, that the priesthood of Christ is under- 
stood to be perpetual, or that Melchizedek in regard to his priesthood 
was like to, or could be compared with, the Son of God. 

In respect to the object of this assertion, I apprehend nothing more 
is intended, than that the priesthood of Christ and of Melchizedek was 
not, like that of the sons of Aaron, limited to any definite period. In 


the absolute sense, εἰς τὸ διηνεκές clearly is not to be understood, either 
of Melchizedek’s priesthood or of Christ’s. Melchizedek’s priesthood 
terminated with his life ; so Christ’s priestly and kingly office as Medi- 
ator, will both cease when the work of redemption is fully accomplish- 
ed, 1 Cor. 15: 24—2s. But in neither case is there any statute, 
which limits the specific time of accession to office and of egress from 
it. Of course the order of Christ’s priesthood, and that of Melchize- 
dek, differed greatly in this respect from that of the sons of Aaron, 
and was, as the writer goes on to declare, greatly superior to it. Dic- 
tator perpetuus among the Romans, for example, was surely a higher, 
or at least a more honorable office, than that of ordinary Dictator. 

Our English version of ἀφομοιωμένος, made like to, does not seem to 
give the true sense of the passage. ‘The apostle is not labouring to 
shew that Melchizedek, in respect to his priesthood, was made like to 
Christ ; but vice versa. He is seeking to illustrate and establish the 
perpetuity of Christ’s priesthood, by comparing it with the well known 
priesthood of Melchizedek. Hence, to say that Melchizedek was made 
like to the Son of God, isa ὕστερον πρότερον; for Ps. 110: 4 com- 
pares the Son of God, as a priest, to Melchizedek. ‘This too is the order 
of nature and propriety ; for as the priesthood of Melchizedek preceded 
that of Christ, it was something with which the Hebrews were already 
acquainted, inasmuch as the Scriptures had repeatedly spoken of it. 
Of course the apostle, in aiming to illustrate and establish the priest- 
hood of Christ, (a priesthood that was recent and not well understood 
by the Hebrews), would very naturally pursue the method of compari- 
son offered to his view in Ps. 110: 4, i. 6. a comparison of Christ’s 
priesthood to that of Melchizedek. ᾿““φομοιωμένος means, then, not 
made like to, but like to, or likened to, i. 6. being compared to. 

Thewhole passage, from ὁ συναντήσας in v. 1, to τῷ υἱῷ τοῦ ϑεοῦ 
in v. 3, is plainly a parenthetic explanation, (a very common occurrence 
in the writings of Paul), thrown in for the sake of suggesting to the read- 
er’s mind some considerations respecting the character and dignity of 
Melchizedek, which would be very useful in regard to a right under- 
standing of the comparison that was to be made out in thesequel. Οὗτος 


396 HEBREWS VII. 9, 4. 


γὰρ ὁ MehyrCedéx, etc., in v. 1, is the immediate Nom. to μένει isgevs 
εἰς τὸ διηνεχές in v.3. The construction of the whole sentence is 
thus ; ‘ This Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest... . (who met Abra- 
ham... . and blessed him. .. . whose name first means righteous king, 
and then peaceful king ....of a descent no where recorded, having ἃ 
priestly office not limited, and being in respect to his priesthood like to 
the Son of God), is a perpetual priest.’ If it be objected, that the par- 
ticiples éousvevouevos, ἔχων, and ἀφομοιωμένος have not, like συναν- 
τήσας, the article before them, and therefore cannot be arranged in 
such a construction; the answer is, that nouns, participles, and adjec- 
tives, put in apposition, either take or omit the article, at the pleasure 
of the writer. E. g. inv. 1, 0 Mehytordiu—Buorlevs . 2. ἱερεύς, in ap- 
position. Then 0 συναντήσας .... εὐλογήσας... «. Eomevevomevos... 
ἀπάτωρ, ἀμήτωρ, ἀγενεαλόγητος ... ἔχων... ἀφομοιωμένος--Ὁ}} in 
apposition with 0 συναντήσας ; a mode of using adjectives and partici- 
ples by no means unusual. See Gersdorf, Bettrdge, ete., Th. V. Ueber 
die Stellung der Adjectiven, etc. In the translation I have endeavour- 
ed, in the present edition, exactly to follow the construction of the whole 
sentence in the original. See Excursus XIII. ὶ 

(4) Θεωρεῖτε 02... . πατριάῤχης, consider now how great a per- 
sonage this must be, to whom the patriarch Abraham gave a tithe of 
the spoils. Θεωρεῖτε, see, perceive, consider, δέ, now, continuative, as 
this particle often is. IImAizos, of what exalted rank. ~ Axoodwi- 
wy, in its literal sense, means summitas acervi frumenti, the top part of 
a heap of grain. It was usual to offer the primitiae or first fruits to 
God. But as offerings were made to their gods, by the Greeks, from 
spoils taken in war, ἀχροϑίνεα came at last to signify, in the Greek 
language, any kind of spoils, from which an offering to the gods was 
taken. The Latins called such offerings, manubiae. ‘The word oxgo- 
ϑινίων has the general sense of spoils here, and evidently refers to 
the spoils which Abraham had taken from the confederate kings, Gen. 
14: 16. 

The object of the apostle in mentioning the circumstance here ad- 
verted to, plainly is, to exalt the dignity of Melchizedek. The high 
reverence which the Jews had for Abraham is well known. If now it 
could be shewn to the Hebrews, that Melchizedek was superior to 
Abraham, then the superiority of Christ, who is like to Melchize- 
dek, is also shewn. Moreover, since the patriarch or head of a na- 
tion was reckoned, in the East, as excelling in dignity all his descend- 
ants; so, if Melchizedek’s dignity exceeded that of Abraham, it 
would follow that it exceeded that of all his descendants—among 


HEBREWS VII. 4—6. 397 


whom were the Levitical priests. It is for the sake of establishing this 
last point, that the comparison of Melchizedek with Abraham is intro- 
duced in v. 4; as the sequel plainly shews. This being established, it 
would follow, that Christ’s priesthood, (which was like that of Melchi- 
zedek), was superior to the Aaronical priesthood; which is the point 
-that the writer designs to illustrate and establish. 

(5) Kai oi wév.... λαμβάνοντες, the sons of Levi, indeed, who ob- 
tain the office of the priesthood, i. e. who are constituted priests. Ad/ the 
sons of Levi were not properly priests ; but only the descendants of Aa- 
ron. Hence the writer adds, τὴν ἱερατείαν λαμβάνοντες. Tt was true, 
indeed, that the whole tribe of Levi had a right to tithes; Num. 18: 
28—30. Deut. 14: 22, 27—29. But it is not material to the writer’s 
object here, to mention this. He is concerned merely with the priests ; 
who, as descendants of Levi, were of course entitled to tithes. If he 
could shew that the priests, the most honoured part of the Levites, who 
were legally entitled to receive tithes from the other descendants of 
Abraham, were still inferior to Melchizedek ; then would he shew that 
the priesthood of Christ was of an order superior to theirs. ‘The pay- 
ment of tithes is an acknowledgment of superiority, in regard to the 
rank of the person who receives them. If Abraham, then, paid tithes 
to Melchizedek, he acknowledged him as superior in respect to rank. 

᾿βντολὴν éyovow .... νόμον, have by the law a commission to tithe 
the people. See the passages of the law just referred to. ᾿δντολήν, di- 
rection, mandate, a precept that gives liberty or confers a right to do 
any thing. 

Tovr éote.... AS oacu, that is, their own brethren, although de- 
scendants from Abraham. ᾿Εξεληλυϑότας ἐκ τῆς oogvog, a Hebraistic 
mode of expression ; e. g. Gen. 35: 11, kings INX? sbi; Gen. 46: 
26, 1297 WES, Ex. 1:5, et al. The Greeks used yevvaodae ὑπὸ 
τινος in such cases. The meaning of the passage is, ‘The priests of 
the tribe of Levi, although descended in common with the other tribes 
from Abraham, have been so elevated to a rank above them by being 
made priests, that they receive the tribute of acknowledged elevation in 
the tithes which are paid them by the others. 

But why should the elevation of the priests above their brethren, be 
introduced here? I answer, in order to shew that the most honoured 
part of the sons of Levi, the most honoured tribe, were of a rank inferior 
to Melchizedek ; consequently, their priesthood was of an order inferior 
to that of Christ. 

(6) Ὃ δὲ μὴ γενεαλογούμενος ἐξ αὐτῶν, but he whose descent is not 

51 


398 HEBREWS VII. 6—8. 


reckoned from them ; a periphrasis by which Melchizedek is described, 
and at the same time additional intimation is given, that he was of an 
order of priests different from that of the Levites. 

Adsxatwné .... εὐλόγηκε, tithed [received tithes from] Abraham, 
and blessed him to whom the promises were made. Aedexatwxe is a Hel- 
lenistic word, being found only in the Septuagint and New Testament. 
The meaning is, that Melchizedek received from Abraham a tenth of 
the spoils; which was the same ratio with the tithes received by the 
Levitical priesthood. Kal τὸν ἔχοντα τὰς ἐπαγγελίας, a periphrasis de- 
signating Abraham, to whom God had made promises of great blessings ; 
comp. Heb. 6: 12—15. 

(7) Χωρὶς δὲ πάσης... εὐλογεῖται, and beyond all controversy, the 
inferior was blessed by the superior. ᾿ΑἸντιλογίας, gainsaying, dispute, 
doubt, comp. 6: 16. “Hiatroy here means merely inferiority in point 
of rank, office, or station; not inferiority in regard to moral or religious 
character, which it is not the writer’s object to bring into view, as it is 
not to his present purpose. Melchizedek was both king and priest; 
Abraham was neither; at least he is not called by either appellation. 
He was indeed an Emir, i. 6. the head of a company of migratory shep- 
herds (Nomades), and had a large number of dependants; as may be 
seen in Gen. 14:14. Abraham is also called 8°32, prophet, Gen. 20: 
7; but he is not called j7>, although he repeatedly offered sacrifices ; 
nor do the Scriptures call him ΠΣ, king. 

Κρείττονος is the antithesis or correlate of ἔλαττον, and therefore 
means superior. Both adjectives are of the neuter gender, as is mani- 
fest from édarzov; but this gender in adjectives is employed to denote 
abstract quality, i.e. it is used in the same way as abstract nouns, 
which are very frequently employed by the sacred writers instead of 
concrete ones. E.¢. Christ is the way, the truth, and the life, i.e. he is 
the guide, the instructer, and the author of life, to men. So here, the 
literal rendering would be, inferiority is blessed by superiority, i.e. the 
inferior person is blessed by the superior one. 

The apostle takes this as a position which will be granted by the 
Hebrews, from the simple consideration, that Abraham, by paying 
tithes to Melchizedek, did himself of course acknowledge his own infe- 
riority of rank. 

(8) Καὶ ὧδε μὲν... .. λαμβάνουσι, here also men who receive tithes 
die; but there, one of whom it is testified that he lives. A very difficult 
verse, about which there has been no small controversy. The literal 
sense of the words would make nothing for the writer’s purpose. Of 


nEBREWs VIL. 8. 399 


the natural life of men he is not speaking; but of the duration of the 
priestly office. “S20 means, in respect to the Levites; ἐκεῖ, in regard 
to Melchizedek. “0 and ἐκεῖ may also be literally rendered in this 
place and in that place; which gives the meaning just proposed. But 
what is ἀποϑνήσκοντες ῦ Is it the natural death of the body? But 
in this respect the Levites differed not from the king of Salem; both 
were mortals. In another world too they live as well as he, i.e. both 
are immortal. Ζῇ), therefore, cannot refer simply to living in another 
world. Nor is there any ground for supposing the apostle means to as- 
sert, that Melchizedek’s high-priesthood continues in heaven; as some 
have imagined. There is no intimation in Scripture of any such thing 
with regard to any one but Jesus. I must therefore understand azo- 
ϑνησκυντες as being used figuratively here, in order to denote the brief 
and mutable condition of the Levitical,priesthood. The figurative use 
of ϑνήσκω and ἀποϑνήσκω, in the New Testament, is very common; 
although no instance occurs, perhaps, where it has the same shade of 
meaning which it appears to have here. Schleusner, however, gives to 
ϑνήσκω in 1 Tim. 5: 6 the same sense, viz. qui officio suo non fungi- 
tur. But in the verse before us, he construes ἀποϑνήσκχοντες as mean- 
ing mortales, and ζῇ as applying to Christ, not to Melchizedek— 
plainly against the context that follows. 

The word ζῇ seems to me not to mean here either natural life or fu- 
᾿ ture immortality, but an enduring, unlimited time of priesthood ; and to 
designate the same idea as éves ἱερεὺς εἰς τὸ διηνεκές inv. 3. A sense 
like this, viz. that of duration, perennitas, the word ζάω often has. If 
this be correct, then its correlate ἀποϑνήσκοντες must of course have 
the sense of short lived or deceasing, viz. as to office or the priesthood. 

In this way, and in this only, can I make out any tolerable sense of 
the passage consistently with the context. Nothing can be plainer, 
than that the object of the writer is to shew the perpetuity of Melchize- 
dek’s priesthood, and not that of his natural life ; and by consequence, 
he would also make out the perpetuity of Christ’s priesthood. To con- 
strue ἀποϑνήσκοντες, then, as referring to physical mortality, and ζῇ 
as having respect to physical or natural life, is to quit the subject under 
the consideration of the writer, and resort to one which is altogether 
inapposite to his purpose. That ζάω and ζωή, moreover, often denote 
perpetuity, perennitas, the reader may readily see by consulting Wahl’s 
Lex. fam, No. 2. @, and ζωή, No.1. 7. The word anodvijoxortes, 
then, by the force of antithesis, denotes the reverse of this; and peren- 
nity is not here ascribed to natural life, but to the priesthood. 


490 HEBREWS VII. 9—11. 


(9) Kai, ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν... δεδεκάτωται, moreover, or besides, even 
Levi who receives tithes, was (if 1 may be allowed the expression) him- 
self tithed, through Abraham ; i.e. not only is the office of the Levitical 
priests temporary or limited in its duration, (which was not the case 
with the office of Melchizedek who was a type of Christ); but the Le- 
vitical priesthood itself, (if 1 may be allowed so to speak), paid tithes, 
through Abraham, to Melchizedek, thus acknowledging his superiority. 
‘Qe ἔπος εἰπεῖν is very common in the best Greek writers. It is a 
usideyuc (softening down) of an expression which a writer supposes his 
readers may deem to be too strong, or which may have the appearance 
of excess or severity. It amounts to an indirect apology for employing 
an unusual or unexpected assertion or phrase. It is very happily intro- 
duced here; as the subject itself is one which the writer did not intend 
to urge as capable of being scanned with literal exactness, but only as 
bearing a popular mode of explanation. Kal Aevi, even Levi himself; 
zat intensive. 

(10) “Hre γὰρ ἔν τῇ oogui.... Medyvoedéx, for he was then in the 
loins of his father, when Melchizedek met him. ” Ext, etiam nunc, even 
now, already, or etiam tunc, even then, then. The meaning of the 
writer is, that at the time then present, viz. when Melchizedek met 
Abraham, Levi was ἐν τῇ ὀσφύϊ tov πατρὸς. Our English version, 
““He was yet in the loins of his father,” gives a sense quite different 
from that of the writer; for the meaning of this must be, ‘he was yet to 
be begotten,’ i.e. he was not yet born. But the apostle designs to say, 
and it is appropriate to his object to say, that even then, when Melchi- 
zedek met Abraham, Levi already (in a certain sense) existed, and, 
through Abraham, paid tithes to the king of Salem, i. e. acknowledged © 
inferiority compared with him. This is the very point which the writer 
is labouring to illustrate. See Excursus XIV. 

(11) He μὲν οὖν τελείωσις ... ἣν, if now perfection were [attainable] 
by the Levitical priesthood. Mév οὖν, or μενοῦν, is here used abso- 
lutely, i.e. without any corresponding δέ following. Οὖὐν serves only 
for a mark of transition to another branch of the writer’s subject; which 
plainly is made. Zé οὖν signifies now indeed; so that we may trans- 
late thus: if now, or if moreover, perfection was indeed [attainable] by 
the Levitical priesthood, etc. 

ξελείωσις is a word very variously understood and translated. Some 
render it accomplishment, viz. of the design of the priesthood ; others, 
sanctification ; others, consummate happiness ; others, moral rectitude 
or perfection. It is best explained by a reference to corresponding pas- 


HEBREWS VII. 11. 401] 


sages in the sequel. In 9:9 it is said, that ‘the Levitical sacrifices 
could not rédscwoue the person who offered them ;’ which (if we com- 
pare 9: 14) appears plainly to mean, ‘to take away the burden of guilt, 
and to render pure or holy the minds of worshippers.’ Again in 10: 1 
it is affirmed of the sacrifices, that ‘they could not redecmoue those who 
approached the altar,’ i. e. those who offered them; and by comparing 
10: 2—4 with this, it is plain the writer means to say, that ‘the sacri- 
fices could not bestow peace of conscience—could not take away the 
burden of sin from the mind of the worshipper ; but they left him filled 
with apprehensions that the penalty of the divine law might still be 
executed upon him.’ Here then is plainly the τελεέωσες, which the 
Levitical priesthood could not effect. It could neither purify the mind 
or soul of the worshipper, nor free him from the burden of his sins, nor 
from the apprehension that they might be punished. Christ did both ; 
and this is the τέλεέωσες here spoken of, which he accomplished, and 
which the law could not accomplish. Chap. 10: 3, 14, is very direct 
to this purpose. The writer then has explained τελείωσες by the sequel 
of his epistle; and in a manner altogether accordant with the object of 
his reasoning here. 

Ὃ λαὸς yao ἐπ᾿ αὐτῇ vevowodernro, for the people received the law 
in connection with this. This circumstance is evidently to be placed in 
a parenthesis. Διενομοϑέτητο, were subjected to the law, were put un- 
der the law ; the prefix « of the Pluperf. being omitted, (as often among 
the Attics). Such a construction in the passive voice is peculiar ; comp. 
Rom.3:4. £a αὐτῇ ; on this condition, connected with this, or under 
these circumstances ; comp. Wahl on ἐπί, IL. 4. b. The meaning is, 
that the Levitical priesthood and the Mosaic law are closely and insepa- 
rably linked together, so that if one be changed the other must of ne- 
cessity be; as the writer proceeds to shew in the sequel. 

Tis ἔτι χρεία... .. λέγεσθαι, what further need was there that an- 
other priest should arise after ike order of Melchizedek, and not be 
called after the order of Aaron. That is, ‘if the Levitical priesthood, 
and the law connected with it, accomplished all in respect to purifica- 
tion from sin and the giving of quiet to the conscience, which was 
needed, then why should the Psalmist speak of a priest who was of an 
order different from that of Aaron, and who was yet to arise?’ This 
would be unnecessary, if the priesthood of Aaron were adequate to the 
reat purposes of salvation. “Lice, any more, any longer, further. Aé- 
‘yeodut, named, selected. 


492 HEBREws VII. 12, 13. 


(12) Meraredeuevng yao... . γίνεται, but in case the priesthood be 
transferred, or changed, there must needs be also a change of the law. 
Mevaridnus means to transfer, to translate ; and this corresponds well 
with the intention of the writer, whose design it is to shew, that the priest- 
hood of the ancient dispensation had been transferred to Christ, though 
on conditions very different from those formerly attached to it; and 
that Christ not only was a priest in fact, but that his priesthood, com- 
ing in the place of the other ancient priesthood, superseded it. The 
sense is substantially the same, if we render it changed. Νόμου here 
means specially the law or statute which had relation to the Levitical 
priesthood, viz. the statute which determined that the priests must all 
be of the descendants of Aaron and of the tribe of Levi. This must of 
necessity be changed, in case a priesthood of a different nature is in- 
troduced, i.e. a priest of a different order. And that such a priest is 
introduced the writer goes on to prove in the sequel. 

This he does, by adducing facts and declarations recorded in the 
Old Testament. (1) Christ sprang from the tribe of Judah, vs. 13, 14. 
(2) He was to be a priest of the order of Melchizedek, vs. 15—17. 
Consequently, the law which had respect only to the Levitical priest- 
hood, must also be changed. 

With this view of the connection of thought, we may see that the γάρ 
in the beginning of this verse, is a yao confirmantis, as grammarians 
and lexicographers say, and may be rendered however, since. The ob- 
ject of the writer in this verse I take to be, to shew that the other priest 
who was to arise, was to be ov κατὰ τὴν τάξιν Acowv. To establish 
this he says, ‘If now there is a transfer of the priesthood to a person 
different from any of the Aaronic order of priests, then of course there 
must be a change of the statutes or laws in respect to the priesthood ; 
and consequently the new priest cannot be κατὰ τὴν take ᾿“αρῶν. 
Having illustrated this latter proposition, namely that the new priesthood 
is not xara τὴν ταξιν  “Ἂαρών, he next proceeds to illustrate the other 
part of his affirmation in v. 11, viz. that another priest must arise κατὰ 
τὴν τάξιν ΠΠελχισεδέχ. 

(13) Ly ὃν yao.... θυσιαστηρίῳ, he too concerning whom these 
things are said, belonged to a different tribe, none of whom served at 
the altar. The γάρ here is one which belongs to those cases where 
the proposition preceding it is mentally supplied. It would stand thus : 
‘[There is a change of the priesthood] for he concerning whom, etc. 
Ταῦτα means the things which concern his being an eternal priest, af- 


neBREWs VII. 13—16. 403 


ter the order of Melchizedek. Zo here connects the illustration or 
proof, with the proposition. 

ITgocesynxe. Προσέχω means to give heed, to apply the mind to, 
τὸν νοῦν being understood ; also to give one’s care to, to serve. 

(14) Πρόδηλον yoo.... ἐλάλησε, since it is manifest that our 
Lord sprang from Judah, in respect to which tribe Moses said nothing 
concerning the priesthood. The yao here stands before a clause which 
gives the reason or ground of the assertion in the preceding verse. 
The course of thought stands thus: ‘The newly appointed priest did 
belong to a tribe different from that of Levi, since (yao) or inasmuch as 
he plainly was a descendant of Judah ; and of course he did not belong 
to the Levitical order of priests.’ 

(15) Kal περισσότερον ere... . ἕτερος, and still more evident is it 
[viz. that the priesthood must be changed], if another priest has arisen 
like to Melchizedek. Between δῆλον, πρόδηλον, and κατάδηλον, there 
is no important difference of signification. ‘The two latter, however, 
seem naturally to render the word somewhat more intensive. “Ἵ}γίστα- 
Tal, 15. risen up, viz. the high priest in question has already arisen or 
made his appearance, is already extant. 

Kad ὁμοιότητα, according to the likeness, in the similitude of, i.e. 
like, resembling ; in a sense like that of xara τάξειεν, in 5: 6,10. 6: 
20. 7: 11, Hebrew, "97237 ἘΦ, Ps. 110: 4. Comp. ἀφωμοιωμένος in 
7:3. 

(10) Ὃς ov κατὰ vouov.... ἀκαταλύτου, who was not made [a 
priest] by an ordinance that was temporary, but by an authority which 
can never expire; i.e. he was not made a priest, under the Mosaic 
law which was to be set aside, vs. 12, 18 seq. ; but by the oath of God, 
which is immutable, comp. vs. 20—24 and 28, 

Σαρκικῆς, fleshly ; hence, secondarily, frail, infirm, short lived, tem- 
porary, quicquid caducum. So the Hebrew 72, Gen. 6:3. Ps. 56: 
5. 78:39. Job 10: 4. Is. 31:35; comp. also ἀσϑενές and ἀνωφελές in 
in v. 18. ᾿Μντολῆς means here, the precept or command respecting the 
appointment of priests contained in the νόμος, i.e. the Mosaic law. 
᾿Διντολῆς σαρκιχῆς is, then, preceptum caducum, a temporary command, 
an ordinance of a temporary, perishable nature. So vs. 12 and 18 re- 
quire us to interpret the passage. 

Avvo, authority, authoritative appointment. So Acts 4:7 ἐν 
ποίᾳ δυνάμει; by what authority 7 see alsol Cor.5:4. Ζωῆς, peren- 
nitas, perpetuity ; see onv. 8 above. ᾿“καταλύτου, quod destrui ne- 
quit, indissoluble ; hence, immutable, imperishable, perpetual. As it is 


404 dine stiles. 


τ---- a Ἢ 


here the antithesis of σαρκεκῆς, so the meaning of σαρκικῆς must be 
such as is given above. Ζωῆς ἀχαταλύτου means, lit. a life that can- 
not end. ‘That which cannot be dissolved, or cease, or perish, is said 
to have ζωὴν ἀκατάλυτον. According to this sense I have translated 
the words. 
So, for substance, Carpzoff, Heinrichs, Jaspis, and others. Kuinoel 
translates xara δύναμιν x. τ. 1, by per vim vitae perennis; end he re- 
~ fers to vs. 23, 24 for explanation. His idea is, that Christ was made a 
high priest, in such a manner as comported with his endless life as a 
priest. But what is this except saying, that he was made a perpetual 
high priest because he was appointed to a perpetual high-priesthood ? 
The other exegesis which I have given, (although he calls it contorta), 
makes out a direct antithesis between the former and latter part of the 
verse ; which, I must think, is the more significant mode of interpre- 
tation. 

That this interpretation of the whole verse is well grounded, would 
seem to follow plainly from the succeeding verse (v. 17), which is ad- 
duced simply to prove the perpetuity of Christ’s priesthood. 

(17) Magruget yao, viz. 7 γραφή, or τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον ; possibly 

' 0g may here be the Nominative. The Nom. in such cases would of 
course be supplied by the readers of the epistle. In the writings of 
the Mishnical doctors, the usual mode of appeal to the Scriptures is 
NID, 1. 6. quod dicitur, or λέγεται γάρ, μαρτυρεῖται. The writer 
makes the appeal to Scripture, in this case, to confirm and enforce what 
he had just asserted. The force of the proof lies in εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα. 
The yao here is yao confirmantis, i.e. it stands before a clause intro- 
duced for the sake of confirming what he had just said. 

(18) ᾿“,ϑέτησις μὲν yoo x. τ. 4, for there is indeed a setting aside ete. 
The γάρ in this case it is somewhat difficult to account for. On the 
whole I understand the connection thus: ‘Jesus is eternal high-priest, 
according to a new arrangement, v. 17; there is such an arrangement, 
for (yao) the former dispensation is abrogated, etc.’ It is then a case 
of yao confirmantis. ᾿“ϑέτησις, rejection, setting aside, abrogation ; 
a stronger word than ἀναλλαγή. Ποοαγούσης, literally preceding, i.e. 
going before the Christian dispensation, 1. q. the ancient law respecting 
the priesthood. “4o0evés καὶ ἀνωφελές are words of nearly the same 
import here. “/o0eves is said of that which has not power to ac- 
complish any particular end proposed; and ἀνωφελὲς is said of that, 
which proves to be neither useful nor availing for the purpose to which 
it has been applied. The meaning here is, that the ancient law with 


ΠΡΡΒΕΥΘΎΥΙΙ. 18—20. 405 


all its priestly ritual, had proved to be altogether incompetent to effect 
the τελεέωσες mentioned in v. 11th, i. 6. to effect the purification of the 
sinner, and give that peace of conscience which is inspired by the well 
grounded hope of pardon for sin; comp. v. 19, and 9: 9, 14. 10: 1—4. 
The two words aodeveg and ἀνωφελές increase the intensity of tho 
affirmation. The epithet σαρκεέκῆς, applied to ἐντολή in the 16th verse, 
is of a similar nature. 

(19) Οὐδὲν yao ἐτελείωσεν ὁ νόμος, for the law perfected nothing? 
The γάρ here introduces an expression, which shews that the law is 
weak and unavailing. Οὐδέν, neuter gender, is used here for οὐδένα 
masculine, i.e. no one; just as τὸ ἔλαττον in v. 2 means the superior 
person, i.e. Melchizedek. 170 πάν and πάντα are repeatedly used by 
John, for πᾶς and navreg; and so of other adjectives. “Lrehe/mce 
means did not effecta τελείωσες, did not purify and pacify the 
consciences and minds of sinners. We have no one English word, 
which corresponds at all with the force of the Greek original; and we 
must therefore content ourselves, either with a kind of literal rendering 
of it, or with a periphrasis (as I have done), leaving the explanation for 
notes. 

"“Enevoaywyy δὲ... τῷ Gm, but [there is] the introduction of a 
better hope; i.e. of a hope of pardon, that “‘ purifies the conscience 
from dead works, so that men may serve the living God,” 9: 14. 
"Ensvoaywyn, superinduction, is said of one thing which is introduced in 
the place of another; e. g. in this case, of the new priesthood which was 
superinduced in the place of the old one. “AAnig κρείττων means ὦ 
better source or ground of hope, viz. the new arrangement was a better 
ground of hope to the sinner than the old one. 4c ἧς, by which, by 
means of which, through which ground of hope, i.e. in the new way 
disclosed by the gospel, ἐγγίζομεν τῷ ϑεῷ, we draw nigh to God, or 
we have access to God. Under the ancient law, the high priest only 
entered the holy of holies to procure pardon for the people. Under the 
gospel, the way is opened by Jesus for all penitent sinners to ‘‘ come 
boldly to the throne of grace,” 4: 16, in order to obtain the blessings 
which they need. “Hyyi¢w is frequently construed with the Dative, in 
Hellenistic Greek; see Sept. Gen. 27:21. Ex. 19:22. The latter 
part of the verse is marked by δέ as a kind of antithesis to the first part, 
or the apodosis of the sentence. It is introduced in order to shew that 
something better comes in the place of that which was abrogated. 

(20) Καὶ xad ὅσον ov χωρὶς ὁρκωμοσίας, inasmuch, also, as not 
without an oath; supply ἱερεὺς γέγονεν ᾿]ησοῦς, from the latter part of 

52 


! 


406 HEBREWS VII. 20—22. 


the following phrase, which is the antithesis of this. A ὅσον in this 
case, refers to κατὰ τοσοῦτον in Vv. 22; and the intervening phrases are 
added by the writer, only by way of explanation and comparison. It is 
difficult if not impossible, to give the exact features of the original here, 
in any copy. The argument of the writer stands thus: ‘The gospel 
is a better source of hope ; for as much (xa ὅσον) as the appointment 
of a priest by an oath, exceeds in solemnity and importance an arrange- 
ment to take the office merely by descent, so much (κατὰ τοσοῦτον, V. 
22) does the new covenant of which Jesus is the sponsor, exceed the 
old’ Ὁρκωμοσία applies rather to the act of taking an oath, being de- 
rived from ὅρκος and ὄμνυμι. 

(21) Οἱ μὲν... γεγονότες, for they, i. 6. the Levites, became priests 
without an oath. Mév woo often means indeed, in fact, verily ; but 
here μέν is only the sign of protasis. The Levites were priests in con- 
sequence of being the descendants of Aaron; Jesus became a priest 
only by special appointment, sanctioned by an oath; so it follows, viz. 

Ὃ δὲ μετὰ ὁρκωμοσίας ... ΠΠελχιζεδέκ, but he, [Jesus, became a 
priest] with an vath, by him who said to him, ““ The Lord hath sworn, 
and will not repent ; thou art a priest for ever of the order of Melchi- 
zedek,” Ps. 110: 4. MerowedknOrjoerae signifies to regret, to alter 
one’s mind or purpose through regret ; and simply, to change or alter 
one’s purpose. 

(22) Kata τοσοῦτον .... /noovs, Jesus is the surety of a covenant 
so much the better. On κατὰ τοσοῦτον, see above. Atadyxn (3) 
means covenant, promise, dispensation, arrangement, testament ; conse- 
quently, when applied to the ancient Jewish law, or to Christianity, it 
means dispensation, economy. Agéeittovos means, better than the an- 
cient διαϑήκη, i. e. the hope inspired by the new διαϑήκη, is as much 
better than the ancient διαϑϑηκη could inspire, as the new dca? nxn is 
superior to the old. “Lyyvog, sponsor, pledge, surety. Many critics 
have supposed, that this word is chosen here on account of its likeness 
to ἐγγίζομεν in the 19th verse ; so that it constitutes a kind of παρονο- 
μασία with it. However this may be, the word is altogether appropri- 
ate to the writer’s purpose. He had spoken of a better hope, in v. 19. 
It was natural to ask, What is the ground or security that this hope 
will be realized? 'This is answered by the assurance, that Jesus is 
ἔγγυος for the dispensation which supports it. 


HEBREWS VII. 23, 24. 407 


The writer now proceeds to add one more reason, why the Levitical priesthood 
must be considered as far inferior to that of Jesus. As men ina frail and dying 
state are constituted priests under the Levitical law, the consequence is, that 
the priesthood is liable to continual change, and must necessarily pass from the 
hands of one to another in a short time. Not so in the case of Christ; who be- 
ing exalted above the heavens, and constituted hich priest in the temple not 
made with hands, hath an immutable priesthood subject to no succession. 


(23) Aad οἱ μὲν nheloves.... παραμένειν, those priests, also, viz. 
the descendants of Aaron, are many, since by reason of death they can- 
not be permanent. Π]λείονες refers to numbers constituted by repeated 
succession ; not to the number of priests existing at any one time. 
Muverw is put in the Dative, as signifying the means. The writer 
doubtless intends that the comparison here shall be referred to the high 
priest’s office in particular; for he is all along considering Jesus as 
ἀρχιερεύς. The number of priests, in general, is stated by Josephus to 
have been 1500; contra Apion. I. 22. 

(24) ὋὉ δὲ, διὰ τὸ μένειν... ἱερωσύνην, but he, because he contin- 
ues forever, has a priesthood without succession. Formerly I adopted 
the explanation here which takes μένειν αὐτὸν as referring to the per- 
petuity of Jesus’ priesthood. But Kuinoel, Bloomfield, and others are 
strongly against this interpretation. On the whole I now feel inclined 
to adopt their views, although with some doubts. ‘hese arise from the 
apparent antithesis demanded between χωλύεσϑαι παραμένειν of the 
preceding clause, (which confessedly means forbidden to remain perma- 
nently in the priests’ office) and μένειν in the present clause. But 
these critics object that it would be mere tautology to say: ‘ Because 
he is a perpetual priest, his priesthood admits of no succession.’ And 
although there are very many expressions in the Bible, which are as 
near to tautology as this, yet on account of the πάντοτε ζῶν in v. 25, 
which is applied to Christ, I am on the whole led to accede to their 
exegesis. I construe mévecy, then, as referring to the perpetual and 
unchangeable condition of Christ, in the world above, where he is priest 
—and perpetual priest, because his life is never interrupted by death; 
all of which is an antithesis to the condition and circumstances of the 
Jewish priests. 

᾿“παραάβϑατον is altogether an appropriate word here, and more sig- 
nificant than αἰώνιον or ἀτέλευτον would be. The writer had just 
said, “The Levitical priesthood admits or demands many (πλείονες) 
priests in succession, because death is continually removing them from 
office.’ On the contrary, Christ being appointed to a perpetual priest- 
hood, his office is here declared to be ἀπαράβατος, i.e. it admitsof no 


408 HEBREWS VII. 24, 25. 


transition to another, no successor in his place, inasmuch as he never dies. 
TlaouPaivw means to pass over, to pass on; and when spoken of an 
office, it signifies to pass into the hands of another person. “Anagaia- 
τος is, therefore, incapable of transition ; which is the very shade of 
meaning that the writer’s argument demands. So Theophylact and 
Oecumenius: ἀπαραβάτον, ἀδιάδοχον, without succession. 

25) “Oder καὶ owls .... ϑεῷ, hence also he is able always to 
save those, who draw nigh to God through him, i. e. approach the throne 
of grace (4: 16) in his name, or on his account, trusting in him as their 
priest and intercessor. “Odev, whence, i. 6. because he is a perpetual 
priest. 2m sev, to save, means here, to deliver from condemnation and 
punishment. ‘This the high priest did, in regard to God’s external gov- 
ernment over the Jews, when he went into the most holy place, and 
made expiation for the sins of the people. But Christ, as a priest in the 
heavenly world, is able also to do this ; and to do it εἰς τὸ παντελές, un- 
ceasingly, always, so long as there are any who need pardon, and who 
can obtain it. 

Πάντοτε ζῶν, ever living, i. e. his life in the heavenly world admits 
of no interruption or change. 

Hie τὸ ἐντυγχάνειν ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν, to intercede for them, or rather to 
interpose in their behalf. The proper meaning of ἐντυγχάνω is, to go 
to any one, to approach him, to meet him, for the sake of accusing, de- 
fending, convicting, or delivering any person, or of transacting any busi- 
ness which has respect to him. Here, it is plainly in the sense of aid- 
ing, defending or delivering ; as the preceding owCevy clearly indicates. 
It means here, also, to do something, or to interpose in such a way as 
is appropriate to the priest’s office. But ¢o intercede in the sense of 
making supplication, was not appropriate to any part of the priests’ of- 
fice under the Levitical law ; at least, not to any which the Scriptures 
have presented to our view. ‘The reader will search in vain for any di- 
rection to the priests, under the Jewish economy, to perform such a du- 
ty as priests; and all the testimony we have to shew us that the priests 
did make intercession, is the nature of the case, and what Philo says of 
their duties, Legat. ad Caium. II. 77. p. 591. (edit. Mangey); see on 
v. 97. Even the passage in Luke 1: 9, 10, seems to indicate nothing 
that solves the question. We must therefore understand éyrvyyaveey 
here in a more general sense, and refer it to any aid which Christ as 
high priest extends to those who approach God confiding in him, 4: 16. 
He is able σώξεεν αὐτούς, because he is a perpetual priest ἐντυγχάνειν 
ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν, 1. 6. to interpose in their behalf, to procure for them such 


HEBREWS VII. 25, 26. 409 


aid as they may need. So the priests under the Levitical dispensation, 
were the internuntit between God and the people, and procured bless- 
ings for them, not only by presenting the offerings which they brought, 
but by inquiring of the Lord for them, or consulting his holy oracle. I 
acquiesce, therefore, in the general idea of ἐντυγχάνειν here, viz. inter- 
posing in our behalf, assisting ; and I do so, because I think this gen- 
eric idea not only better comports with the Greek word ἐντυγχάνειν, 
but is of course more significant and expressive than merely a specific 
meaning, which limits the Saviour’s aid to one particular thing. 


The writer, having now commented on the priesthood of Christ as compared 
with that of Melchizedek, and having also made some deductions from the na- 
ture of Christ's priestly office as thus exhibited, which are much to his purpose, 
resumes the subject which he had dropped at 5: 10, and which he had first pro- 
posed in 5: 2,3. In 5: 7—9 he had shewn the similarity between Christ and 
the Jewish priests, in regard to the power of sympathizing with the suffering, 
inasmuch as both he and they were sufferers themselves. But he did not intend 
that the ἀσϑένεια of the Jewish priests should be predicated of Jesus in all res- 
pects. To guard against this, our author again introduces the topic here, and 
shows how far superior the priest of the new covenant is, in a moral respect, to 
the priests of the old. 


(26) Ζυιοῦτος yao ἡμῖν ἔπρεπεν ἀρχιερεύς, now such a high priest was 
needful for us. Tao makes some difficulty here for interpreters. Kui- 
noel says: yao aflirmat enimvero, utique. In questions and answers, I 
allow that it is often an intensive particle. But here this has no place. 
I must therefore make some such connection of sense as the following : 
‘Christ always lives, and will always be our helper; for such a high 
priest we needed.’ The implication is, that God has provided help 
adequate to all our need, and therefore provided a perpetual helper. If 
this be not the connection, I cannot see how γάρ is to be fairly explain- 
ed. JIgenw ordinarily signifies, that which is becoming, proper, fit. 
But here ἔπρεπε seems plainly to be equivalent to τὸ ἀναγκαῖον ; as in 
Matt. 3:15. So Luther, sollten wir haben, we must have. So Ernes- 
ti, Calovius. 

“Ὅσιος, holy, not merely U5i3p here, but Pz, Son, Dvn; for 
moral internal holiness or purity of nature is intended. ”_4zaxos, harm- 
less, qui malum non fecit, whose external conduct towards others cor- 
responds with internal oovorns. 

“Auiavtog, undefiled, has reference to the ceremonial purity which 
was peculiarly required of the Jewish high priests. “Audaytog has 
here, however, a moral sense, and expresses summarily and with inten- 
sity the ideas conveyed by ὅσιος and ἄχαχος. Keyaguouévog ἀπὸ 
τῶν ἁμαρτωλῶν, separated from sinners, i. e. removed from all that 


410 ΠΕΡΕΕΒ VII. 90, 27. 


them. It is nearly synonymous in its meaning with ἀμίαντος, and is 
added (as is usual in such cases with the sacred writers) for the sake of 
intensity. 

“Ὑιῳηλότερος τῶν οὐρανῶν γενόμενος, exalted above the heavens, i. e. 
seated at the right hand of the majesty on high, 1: 3. Comp. Phil. 2: 9. 
Colos. 1: 18. Heb. 2:9. 8:1. Rev. 5: 12. Matt. 25: 31. 

By these assertions the writer designs to shew his Hebrew readers, 
that Christ was in all personal respects exalted above the Jewish high 
priests. They were “‘ compassed with infirmities,” but he was spotless ; 
if they were ceremonially undefiled, he was morally so; if they-were 
placed in an exalted station, he was infinitely above them, being, like 
Melchizedek, king as well as priest, inasmuch as he was raised to the 
throne of God above the heavens, 1:3. ‘To finish the comparison he 
goes on to say, that, in consequence of his perfect purity, he needed no 
expiatory offering for himself, as the Jewish high priest did. 

(27) “Og οὐκ ἔχει... .. λαοῦ, who has not (like the high-priests) any 
daily necessity of offering sacrifices, first for his own sins, and then 
for those of the people. Many doubts have been raised by critics, 
about the meaning of xa ἡμέραν here, because they have supposed 
that the high-priest officiated in person, only on the great day of atone- 
ment. See Lev. 6: 19—22. Num. 28:3, 4; which, however, do not 
render the daily personal service of the high-priest certain. ΑἹ] that is 
necessary, as I suppose, in order to illustrate the real sense of the apos- 
tle’s words here, is, the suggestion that he does not assert the daily sacri- 
ficial duty of the high-priest in propria persona, but that the high-priests, 
on account of their infirmities (sins), were under the necessity of having 
daily sacrifice offered for them; as were all the Jewish nation. See 
Num. 28:3, 4. In this respect Christ differed entirely from them. 
Still, Philo, who was cotemporary with the apostles, says, ἀρχιερεὺς, 
κατὰ τοὺς νόμους, εὐχὰς δὲ καὶ ϑυσίας τελῶν καϑ' ἑκάστην ἡμέραν, 
the high-priest, agreeably to the laws, makes daily supplications and 
sacrifices, see on v. 25. It happens in this case, as in all others of a 
like nature which occur in our epistle, that the deep and accurate know- 
ledge of the writer, in respect to every thing which concerned the Jew- 
ish dispensation, becomes apparent, Just in proportion to our knowledge 
of the usages which really existed under that dispensation. 

Τοῦτο γὰρ yeti 4 ἀνενέγχας, for this he did, once for all, when he 
offered up himself; i. e. he offered sacrifice for the sins of the people, 
once for all, (but not for himself as a sinner). “Avageom is like the 


HEBREWS VII. 98--111.1. All 


Heb. sty. ITooogéow is also used in a similar sense. “Lgasaé, 
lit. for once, einmal; but according to usage, it denies a repetition of 
the act or thing to which it relates, and so means once for all. 

(28) Ὃ νόμος yao... . ἀσϑένειαν, for the law constitutes men high 
priests who have infirmity. Ig here refers to the preceding declaration, 
viz. the necessity of the high-priests that daily sacrifice should be made 
for them. Why? Because (γάρ) they were men who had infirmities, 
i.e. they every day committed sin. “/yovrag ἀσϑένειαν here means, 
those who have infirmity of a moral nature, 1. e. who commit sin, who 
are sinners; so also in verse 2. 

Ὃ λύγος δὲ ὁρκωμοσίας .. .. τετελειωμένον, but the word of the 
oath, which was subsequent to the law, [constitutes as high-priest] the 
Son who is forever exalted to glory. “O λόγος τὴς ὁρκωμοσίος is the 
same as ὅρκος or ὑρκωμοσία in verse 20. The writer refers to Ps. 110: 
4. The word of the oath, i.q. the oath that was uttered. 

Yio εἰς tov αἰῶνα τετελειωμένον. As to τελεέύω, see 2: 10 on τέ- 
λειῶσαι. I regard the expression as designed here to convey, for sub- 
stance, the idea of a state of the highest perfection and exaltation, which 
forbids the supposition that Jesus can have such ἀσϑενείαν as the Jew- 
ish priests. 


CHAP. VIII. 


(1) Λεφάλαιον δὲ ἐπὶ τοῖς λεγομένοις, the most important thing, 
however, in regard to what we are now treating of, is. That καφάλαι- 
ov has such a meaning as is here assigned to it, is beyond any reasona- 
ble doubt. So Suidas, referring to this passage, says: xeqadavov, ἐχεῖ, 
τὸ μέγεστον. So Theophylact, on this verse: ἵνα ἐἔπω τὸ μέγιστον 
καὶ συνεχτικώτερον, that I may say the greatest thing and the most 
comprehensive. So Theodoret understood xeqgadacov; for he says, τὴν 
μεγίστην τιμὴν τελευταίαν κατέλιπε, he reserved the greatest honour 
until the last. So Philo: τὸ κεφαλαιον τῶν ἀνδρῶν τῶν πολεμιστῶν, 
the head of the warriors. So the classic authors also, as may be seen 
in Schneider, and in any good Greek lexicon; to which may be added 
many of the most distinguished among late critics on our epistle, such 
as Zachariae, Michaelis, Heinrichs, Storr, Dindorf, Schulz, Jaspis, and 
others. In the like sense, also, are the Hebrew wN7 and Το δ ἢ used. 
The context, moreover, renders it quite plain, that such must be the 
meaning, and that κεφάλαιον does not here mean swm or summary, in 
the sense of recapitulation or contents ; for what follows is no recapitu- 


412 HEBREWS VIII. 1. 


lation of what precedes, but a new topic, exhibiting a different attitude 
or view of Christ’s priesthood. In the preceding chapter, the apostle 
has treated of the superiority of Christ’s priesthood in respect to duration 
and succession. He has shewn, also, that Christ was made priest by 
the solemnity of an oath, while the Levites were not introduced to their 
office by such a solemnity. The priesthood of the latter was liable to 
continual interruption and vicissitude, from the frail and dying state of 
those who were invested with the office of priest ; while the perpetuity 
of Christ’s priestly office, was never exposed to interruption from causes 
of this nature. Finally, the Jewish priests were themselves not only 
peccable but peccant men, and needed to offer sacrifices on their own 
account as well as for the sake of others; while Christ was holy, and 
and perfectly free from all sin, and exalted to a glorious state in which 
he was placed forever beyond the reach of it, so that his sacrifice would 
inure solely to the benefit of sinful men. 

Thus much the writer has already said respecting the nature of the 
office conferred on Christ, and his qualifications to discharge the duties 
of it. He now comes, in chaps. vii—x., to the consideration of the 
duties themselves, viz. the nature of the sacrifice which Jesus offers 5 
the place where it is offered; the efficacy which it has to atone for sin ; 
and the difference, in regard to all these points, between the sacrifice 
offered by Christ and that which was presented by the Jewish priests. 
This topic, then, differs from those which were discussed in chap. vu. 
Κεφάλαιον, therefore, does not mean recapitulation here; although 
there can be no doubt that the word itself is capable of conveying such 
a sense, if the nature of the case demanded it. 

Moreover, from the circumstances just presented it is evident, that 
what follows is the zeqadavoy, principal thing, which belongs to the 
topic of the writer. The dignity of an office, and the particular qualifi- 
cations of the person who is to be invested with it, are things which in 
their own nature are subordinate to the great end which is to be accom- 
plished by the oflice itself. They are only subordinate means of bring- 
ing about the end of the office ; while this end or design itself must, 
from its own nature, be regarded as the principal thing, κεφάλαιον. 

"Eni τοῖς λεγομένοις, in respect to, ete. That ἐπί often has this 
sense, may be seen in the lexicons. eyomevorg (pres. Part. passive) 
means the subjects now spoken of or discussed. Tovoutoy agyregec, 
such a priest, viz. such as had been described in the preceding chapter ; 
see 7: 26. 

Ὃς ἐκάϑισεν ἐν δεξιᾷ x. τ. λ, see on 1:3. It is quite possible that 


HEBREWS VIII. 1—3. 413 


the writer, in using ἐχάϑεσε here, may intend tacitly to introduce a 
comparison between Christ as a priest performing the duties of his office 
and being seated on a throne of majesty, and the high-priest of the Jews 
who in the discharge of all the duties of his function stood before the 
Lord. But I do not think the point clear enough to be insisted on. 
Thus much is clear, viz. that the writer means to shew the very great 
difference between Christ and the Jewish high-priest, by adverting to 
the fact, that the one is seated on the throne of God in the ‘heavens, 
while the other only ministers on earth, in a temple reared by the hands 
ofmen. This last idea he now proceeds more fully to develope. 

(2) Τῶν ἁγίων Aevrovoyos, a minister of the sanctuary, i.e. of the 
adytum, sanctum sanctorum, &>%; in other words, the hich-priest of 
the temple above, having access to Wp, the holy or most holy place. 
“Ayiwy may also mean of holy things, i.e. ἀγίων αἀληϑινῶν, of the 
truly sacred or holy things in heaven. But I prefer the former sense ; 
as the comparison thus becomes more direct with the Jewish high-priest. 
«Ἱειτουργός means a public minister, qui publicis officiis praeest, qui 
munera publica praestat. Says Ulpian, the Scholiast upon Demosth. 
contra Septin., λεῖτον ἐχάλουν οἱ παλαιοὶ τὸ δημόσιον, what was 
public the ancients called λεῖτον. The ending -ουργός comes from 
the verb ἔργεεν, opero, officio fungor. 

Kai τῆς σκηνῆς τῆς αληϑινῆς, the true tabernacle, means that which 
is spiritual, immutable, and eternal in the heavens; and which therefore 
is called true or real, in distinction from the earthly tabernacle that was 
made by the hands of men, and was of materials earthly and perishable. 
The tabernacle in heaven is the substance; that on earth, the image or 
type. Hence the former is, by way of distinction, properly named ἀλη- 
ϑιενῆς, i.e. real, or that which truly and permanently exists. 

What is intimated by this appellation, is now more fully expressed. 
“Hy ἔπηξεν ὁ κύριος, καὶ οὐχ ἄνϑρωπος, which the Lord constructed or 
reared, and not man; i.e. the true or heavenly tabernacle is not mate- 
rial, was not formed by human architects, but reared by the immediate 
power of God. Whether the writer means here to speak of an actual 
heavenly structure, having physical form and location, is a question 
which will be brought up by v. 5. below. 

(3) Πᾶς yao ἀρχιερεὺς... .. καϑίσταται, for every high priest is 
appointed to present both oblations and sacrifices; i.e. it enters into 
the very nature of such an office, that duties of this kind must be per- 
formed by him who sustains it ; see the original proposition of this sub- 
ject,in 5:1. The γάρ here makes not a little difficulty. On the 

53 


414 HEBREWS VIII. 3—5. 


whole I imagine the connection of thought in the writer’s mind to be 
as follows: ‘Christ is the minister of the upper sanctuary ; for (γάρ) 
every high priest must have sacerdotal duties to perform, etc.’ Some 
critics render γάρ, igitur ; others, autem; but this is taking great lib- 
erties with it. “ὥρα, oblations or gifts that were without blood, such 
as the first fruits of grain, vegetables, etc. Θυσίας, animals slain for 
sacrifice. Both were presented to God by the priest, who acted as the 
internuntius between Jehovah and the offerer. 

“Oder ἀναγκαῖον... προσενέγκῃ, whence it is necessary that this 
[high priest] also have some [offering] to present; i.e. if Christ be high 
priest, and if such an office is necessarily connected with the duty of 
presenting some offering, then Christ of course must present one. 
What the oblation made by Christ is, he tells us more fully in chap. 9: 
11—14, 25, 26. 

(4) The apostle proceeds to shew the reason, why Christ is a priest 
in the tabernacle above, and not in that on the earth. £2 μὲν yao ἣν 
.... δῶρα, for if he were on earth, then he could not be a priest, be- 
cause there are priests appointed by law who present oblations accord- 
ing to the law. The γάρ here I take to be as introducing a second 
reason, why Christ is a minister in the upper sanctuary. The μέν here 
is in the protasis; the δὲ of the apodosis is in v.6. The argument of 
the passage stands thus: ‘The Scripture calls Christ ἱερεὺς εἰς τὸν 
αἰῶνα; but this he could not be, while on earth, inasmuch as there are 
already ἱερεῖς there by divine appointment; consequently he is ἱερεύς 
in the temple above, and must present his offering there.’ “ὥρα means 
here oblations of every kind, comprehending the same things as δῶρα 
τε καὶ θυσίας in v. 3. 

(5) Οἵτινες ὑποδείγματι. . .. ἐπουρανίων, the same who perform 
service in [that tabernacle which 15] a mere copy of the heavenly [sanc- 
tuary]; comp. v.2 and 9:24. ᾿Ὑποόδειγμα means image, effigy, copy, 
resemblance, imitation ; all designating the idea, that the earthly tem- 
ple stands related to the heavenly one, only as a painting or picture of 
any thing, stands related to the object itself. The heavenly σκηνή is 
ἀληϑυνὸς, the earthly one oxea oe. 

Sxia, shadow, slight and imperfect image, sketch; distinct from 
elxov, a picture completed, an accurate resemblance. It is also the cor- 
relate antithesis of σῶμα, body; see Col. 2:17. Σχιά I have con- 
strued as qualifying ὑποδείγματι, and rendered both words mere copy, 
i.e. 1 have construed them as a Hendiadys. The meaning is, that it is 
only a resemblance ; 1. 6. the earthly tabernacle is but a shadow, a mere 


HEBREWS VIII. 5, 6. A415 


imperfect effigy, of the heavenly one, Consequently the office of priest 
in the latter, is far more elevated than the like office in the former. 

Tov ἐπουρανίων, i.e. ἁγίων, sanctuary. So in ν, 2, ἁγίων λειτουρ- 
γός, 1. 6. ἁγίων [τόπων] λειτουργὸς, ὦ minister of the holy of holies, 
or of the most holy place. 

Kodwe youudreorat.... ὄρει, for Moses when about to build the 
tabernacle, was divinely admonished; ‘‘ See now,” said he, ‘ that thou 
make ali things according to the pattern shewed thee in the mount.” 

-Χρηματίζω means to give oracular responses, or to make communi- 
cations to men in any supernatural way. It is spoken actively of God 
and not of men. So Phavorinus, χρηματίζειν, λέγεται ἐπὶ ϑεῶν' τὸ δὲ 
διαλέγεσϑαι, ἐπὶ ἀνθρώπων. In the passive voice (as here), it means, 
to receive divine responses or communications of any kind. 

‘Entredeiv, to complete, finish, perform, do, make. Φησί, viz. God 
saith, in Ex. 25: 40. comp. Ex. 25:9. 26:30. 27:8. Num. 8: 4. 
1 Chron. 28: 11, 19. Acts 7: 44. The Hebrew word, to which τύπον 
here corresponds, is n722m, model, sketch, delineation, form. Πύπος 
means model or form here; as it often does. ρει refers to mount 
Sinai; for it was during the theophany there, that communications 
were made to Moses on the subject of building the tabernacle ; see Ex. 
24: 18, comp. 25: 9, 40. 31: 18. 32:1. See Excursus XV. 

(6) Novi δὲ διαφορωτέρας τέτευχε λειτουργίας, but now has he ob- 
tained a service of amore excellent nature; i. e. since he is not a priest 
in the earthly temple but in the heavenly one, he has an office [πόσῳ] 
διαφορωτέρα, [so much] the more exalted, viz. than that of the Levitical 
priests. 

“Ὅσῳ vat... . μεσίτης, as much more as the covenant, of which he 
is the mediator, is superior [to the ancient one], beixg sanctioned by 
better promises. IIoow must be understood in the clause preceding 
this, viz. πόσῳ διαφορωτέρας, in order to make out the comparison 
which its correlate ὅσῳ implies in the latter. Nevouoderntas, is sanc- 
tioned, 1. 6. is promulgated and established with all the solemnity and 
stability of alaw. The better promises follow, viz. in vs. 8—13. The 
imperfection of the first covenant, and the perfection of the second, is 
further disclosed in9:9—14. 10: 1—22. 18:9—14. From these 
passages it appears, that the first covenant promised only external puri- 
fication, together with the civil or ecclesiastical pardon of an offender who 
complied with the rites which it enjoined ; but under the new covenant, 
real pardon of sin by God is to be obtained, with purification and peace 


410 HEBREWS VIII. θη. 


of conscience, enue =o Hi αν life, and union at last with the assem- 
bly of the redeemed in a better world. 

The sentiment of the apostle, then, in our verse, stands thus: ‘The 
office with which Christ is invested as a priest, or his priestly function, 
is as much superior to that of the Levitical priests, as the covenant un- 
der which he holds his office, excels, in the blessings which it promises, 
the covenant introduced by Moses.’ 

(7) Ei γὰρ ἡ moarm.... τόπος, moreover if that first [covenant] 
had been faultless, then no place for the second would have been sought. 
‘H πρώτη, sc. διαϑήκη, means here, the Jewish dispensation or econo- 
my. ἄμεμπτος, without fault, free from defect. 'The meaning is not 
that the Mosaic economy had positive faults, viz. such things as were 
palpably wrong or erroneous ; but that it did not contain in itself all the 
provision necessary for pardon of sin, and the rendering of the con- 
science peaceful and pure; which the gospel does effect. See on 7: 
19 and comp. 9: 9—14, 28,24. 10: 1—3,i0—14. The law then 
was not τέλειος, i.e. ἄμεμπτος ; nor was it designed to be any thing 
more, than a dispensation peparatory to the gospel. ‘ 

᾿βξητεῖτο τόπος, no room had been sought, or no provision would be 
made, for a second, i.e. for a new covenant or the gospel dispensation. 

(8) ΤΠεμφόμενος yao αὐτοῖς λέγει, but finding fault [with the first 
covenant], he says to them, i.e. the Jews. The passage is capable of 
another construction, viz. finding fault with them, i.e. the Jews; in 
which way a majority of the commentators, with Chrysostom, have un- 
derstood it. “Μέμφομαι can undoubtedly govern αὐτοῖς in the Dative ; 
but still, I prefer the other construction. The apostle says, ‘The 
former covenant was not ἄμεμπτος." He goes on to prove this; but 
how? By quoting a passage from Jer. 31: 31—34. But what does this 
passage contain ? “μέμφεται, ΞΟ the apostle, 1.4. μεμφόμενος ἔστε, 
i.e. it affirms that the law is not ἀμέμπτος; for these two words are 
plainly connected as antitheses by the writer. If so, then usugopevog 
governs διαϑηκή implied, and not αὐτοῖς ; and so I understand it. If 
the ellipsis be supplied it will read, μεμφόμενος αὐτῇ, sc. διαϑήκῃ. 
In such a case αὐτοῖς is governed by λέγει. 

In addition to the argument thus drawn from the writer’s purpose, I 
would also suggest, that the whole of Jer. xxx1. which precedes the pas- 
sage quoted, is made up of consolation and promise, instead of reproof 
or finding fault. The imputation of defect, then, must be such an im- 
putation, in this case, as is implied in the passage quoted. But in this, 
the declaration that a new covenant should supersede the old one, im- 


HEBREWS VIIL. ὃ. 417 


plies of course that the old one had failed to accomplish all the objects 
to be desired, i. 6. it was defective. The apostle evidently understands 
the passage quoted, as originally having respect to the gospel dispensa- 
tion; nor can I perceive any good reason wiy it should not be so un- 
derstood. There is the same objection, that any prophecy whatever 
should be understood as having regard to this dispensation, as there 
would be to this being so understood ; consequently there is sufficient 
reason why this should be understood as the apostle has explained it, 
unless we reject altogether the idea, that any truly prophetic declara- 
tions of such a nature can and do exist. 

"JOov ἡμέραν... .. καινήν, behold the days are coming, saith the 
Lord, when I wiil make a new covenant with the house of Isracl and 
ihe house of Judah. °/dov corresponds to the Hebrew 27, and is us- 
ed to excite the particular attention of persons who are addressed, to 
any thing or subject. It is Hebraism, and not of classic usage ; at least 
not in any measure so frequently employed in the classics, as by the 
writers of the New Testament. ‘/dov is accented on the ultimate in 
order to mark it as an adverb, and to distinguish it from ἔδου 2. aor. 
Imp. of the verb e¢dw. 

“Πμέραε ἔρχονται is equivalent to the Hebrew D°N2 5%", which is 
used indefinitely for any future period whether near or remote. The 
simple meaning of the expression is, ‘ At some future period, I will 
make, ete.’ 

"Eni tov oizov “Jogand καὶ ἐπὶ tov οἶκον "Jovda, i. q. Hebrew 

PRI! TAIT MB, 1. e. house, family, tribe, or nation of Judah and 
Israel: af he meaning is, “with all the twelve tribes,’ 1. e. the whole of 
the Hebrew nation. “Hai τὸν οἶκον, i. 4. ἐπὶ τῷ οἴκῳ, see Wahl’s 
Lexiton on ἐπί, no 8. a. In the Septuagint the passage reads thus: 
καὶ διαϑήσομαι τῷ οἴκῳ ᾿Ισραὴλ καὶ τῷ οἴκῳ fovda διαϑήκην καινήν. 

“Ἰιαϑήκην is commonly employed by the Seventy in order to trans- 
latenq2. The general idea of δια ϑάκη is, disposition or arrange- 
ment of any kind, or in regard to any matter; and it is a derivate of the 
verb δεατίϑημε, to dispose of, to arrange. Hence it is sometimes em- 
ployed by classic writers in the sense of foedus, compact or covenant 
between two parties; but not so in the New Testament. Like the He- 
brew 0792, (to which according to the usus loquendi of the New Tes- 
tament it generally a, it often means law, precept ; even par- 
ticular precept; as in Acts 7:8, the precept of circumcision; in Rom. 
9: 4, αἵ διαϑήκαι, the tables of the law, i. e. the ten commandments, 
comp. Deut. 4: 18, where n73 is explained by D277 nN Ww, the 


418 HEBREWS VIII. 8, 9. 


ten commandments ; comp. also Deut. 9:9, 11. So Heb. 9: 4, κεβω- 
τὸν τῆς διαϑήκχης, the ark which contained the δεαϑηκηὴν, i. 6. the two 
tables of the ten commandments, (i. q. 7177772 PS, Num. 10: 

33); and afterward, in the same verse, at πλάκες της διαϑήκης, the 
[stone] tablets containing the ten commandments. The general idea of 
law, precept, statute, is very commonly annexed to 772 in Hebrew, 
where the Septuagint render it by διαϑήκη; 68. δ. Ex. 19: 5, et. al. 
saepe. Both in classic authors and in the New Testament, it has also 
the meaning of last will, testament ; e. g. Gal. 3: 15. Heb. 9: 16, 17. 

Most frequently of all is m°43 in the Old Testament, and Arian 
in the New, employed to designate a promise, compact, or agreement on 
the part of God with his people, that on condition of doing thus and so, 
blessings of such and such a nature shall be bestowed upon them. It 
comes in this way very commonly to designate the whole Jewish econo- 
my, (as we call it), with its conditions and promises; and by the wri- 
ters of the new Testament it is employed in a similar way, in order to 
designate the new economy or dispensation of Christ, with all its conditions 
and promised blessings. Thus ἢ παλαιά or πρώτη διαϑήκη means, 
the Jewish dispensation; and ἢ καινὴ διαϑήκχη means, the Christian 
dispensation. The idea often annexed by readers to the word covenant, 
viz. mutual compact, and a guid pro quo in respect to each of the par- 
ties, is not the Scriptural one. The meaning altogether predominant 
is an arrangement on the part of God in respect to men, in consequence 
of which certain blessings are secured to them by his promise, on con- 
dition that they comply with the demands which he makes, i. e. obey 
his precepts. “ἠιαϑήκη, then, embraces both precept and promise ; 
and may be used for either, or for both at the same time, pro re nata; 
and it often is so used, both in the Old Testament and in the New. In 
our text διαϑήκην καύνήν means, a new arrangement or disposition 
made by Christ, i.e. one which has in some respects new conditions 
and new promises. 

(9) Ov κατὰ τὴν διαϑήκην x. τ. 4. This clause is explanatory of 
the word χαινήν in the preceding verse. The meaning is, ‘The cov- 
enant which I will make at a future period with the Jewish nation, (i. 
e. the dispensation under which I will place them), shall be different 
from that which I made when I brought them out of Egypt.’ 

"Hy ἡμέρᾳ ἐπιλαβομένου μου τῆς χειρὸς αὐτῶν, Hebrew biz 
DSS (pn - Xevgog (in the Gen.) is governed by the force of ἐπὶ 
in composition with λαβομένου ; so ἐπιλαμβάνειν τῆς χειρός, to take 
by the hand, to lead, ete. ‘Hkayayewv, to bring or lead out, εἰς τὸ be- 


neBrews VIII. 9. 419 


ing understood before the Inf. here. Both words together mean assist- 
ed or helped to come out. This clause is added by the writer, in order 
to shew plainly that he means the διαϑήχην, which was made when 
Moses led the Israelites out of Egypt, through the wilderness, toward 
Canaan. 


“Ore αὐτοὶ οὐχ ἐνέμειναν ἐν τῇ διαϑήκη μου, because they did not 
keep my covenant. The Hebrew is, "ΑΞ ΤΩΝ A] Aa TWN, be- 
cause they violated my covenant, i. e. failed ‘to perform the conditions on 
which I promised to bestow blessings upon them. The Greek οὐκ évé- 
μδέναν, is a version ad sensum but not ad literam. Mévo or ἐμμένω 
means, among other things, to persevere, to be constant, to continue firm 
or steadfast in any thing. The Greek expression οὐκ ἐνέμειναν is soft- 
er than 995; and as οὐκ ἐνέμειναν conveys for substance the same 
idea as 195%, we may well suppose it was preferred to a stronger ex~ 
pression by the writer of our epistle, while he was addressing himself 
to his Jewish brethren. Ὅτι οὐκ ἐνέμειναν assigns areason why a new 
covenant was to be made, viz. ‘Because the old one is broken, and 
because it has not been kept on the part of the Jews, and will not be 
kept, therefore a new one, on different conditions and with better prom- 
ises, shall be made.’ 

Kayo ἡμέλησα αὐτῶν, Hebrew D3 "72223 72581, (Eng. version) αἷς 
though I was an husband to them; Gesenius, ee 1 was their Lord, 
in the earlier editions of his Hebrew lexicon; but in his last, egoque eos 
rejicerem; and soin Jer. 3:14. That the Septuagint have given a 


correct version here, and that the apostle adopted it in our text, is very 
AL 


probable. The Arabic WS je (2 ἘΞΣΞ) means to loath, to rgect with 
large! 

loathing ; see Castell Lex. on de: In this sense, it is probable, 3 >y3 
is used in Jer. 81: 32, and (as some think) in Jer.3: 14. So Abul 
Walid, Joseph Kimchi, and Rabbi Tanchum understood the word in 
31:32; and in like manner many modern critics. The Greek ἠμέλη- 
σα means to neglect, to disregard, to treat with neglect, and is (like οὐκ 
ἐνέμειναν) a softer expression than the corresponding Hebrew one, 
while it conveys for substance the same idea. The Septuagint, in their 
rendering of 2 "n>¥2, appear to have preserved an ancient meaning of 
the word bya, for the correctness of which the Arabic is a pledge at 
the present time. 

The disregarding or treating with neglect (ἡμέλεσα) here spoken of, 
has reference to the various punishments inflicted upon Israel for their 


429 neBrews VIII. 10,11. 


wickedness, instead of the blessings which they would have received 
had they been obedient. 

(10) “Ore αὕτη τ διαϑήκη ... κύριος, but this is the covenant which 
T will make with the house of Isracl, after those days, saith the Lord. 
“Ort, but, so the Hebrew "3, Ps. 44: 23. 180: 4. Job 14: 16, al.; or, 
if this liberty of rendering ὅτε be not allowed, it may be translated for. 
The reasoning of the passage would then stand thus: ‘ Not according 
to the old covenant, for this, etc., i. e. this new one is of another tenor.’ 
Oizw ᾿)σραὴλ, house of Isracl, in this verse, means the Jews in general, 
the Israelitish nation; for so the whole nation is often named, in the 
Old Testament and in the New. 

Aovg νόμους μου εἰς τὴν διάνοιαν αὐτῶν. T will put my laws into 
their mind, Hebrew tapa. For διδούς the Septuagint has διδοὺς 
δώσω, meaning, I suppose, .7 will deeply infix. This sense οἵ δίδωμι 
comes from the Hebrew 72; see Wahl on δίδωμι No. 8. Acdous, like 
the present participle in Hebrew, is used for the future δώσω. To put 
laws into their minds, of course means to inscribe or engrave them as it 
were, i. 6. deeply to infix them. Aci ἐπὶ καρδίας αὐτῶν ἐπιγράψω 
αὐτούς, and I will engrave them upon their hearts, or inscribe them upon 
their hearts ; an expression parallel to the preceding, and of the same 
import. The meaning of both is, I will give them a lasting spirit of 
obedience ‘to my laws, so that they will no more violate them as they 
have done; i.e. the new covenant shall be distinguished from the old, 
by a higher and more permanent spirit of obedience in those who live 
under it. 

Kai ἔσομαι αὐτοῖς... .. λαόν, and I will be their God and they shall 
be my people; i.e. I will grant them peculiar protection and blessings, 
_ and they shall be peculiarly obedient and devoted to me; comp. Rev. 
21:3,4,7. Zech.8:8. For the meaning of the Hebrew-Greek idiom, 
εἰς ϑεὸν and εἰς λαόν, see on Heb. 1: 5. 

(11) Kel ov μὴ διδάξουσιν... .. κύριον, no one shall teach his own 
fellow-citizen, nor any one his brother, saying, Know the Lord. For 
τὸν πολίτην, Various manuscripts and editions have tov πλησίον. The 
original Hebrew is, THN NN WNT UP ΩΝ Ww Ty 77927 δὲρῚ 
which, interpreted agreeably to a well known Hebrew idiom, "metns 
simply, one shall not teach another; for w°X and Σ᾽, as well as UN 
and ἽΝ simply denote each other or one another, when thus coupled 
together. Zo» πολίτην, in our text, corresponds to the Hebrew 4737; 
and this word the Septuagint almost always render by πλησίον. This 
is the ground, probably, why the reading πλησίον has been preferred 


HEBREWS VIII. 11, 12. 421 


by Bengel, Carpzoff, and some other critics. But πολίτην is in the 
best manuscripts ; and Wetstein, Griesbach, Matthiae, Rosenmueller, 
Knapp, Heinrichs, Tittmann, and others, prefer it. ‘The Septuagint, 
moreover, render ¥> by πολίτης, in Prov. 11: 9, 24:28. Whether, 
however, πλησίον or πολίτην be adopted, the sense is not changed. 
The meaning of the whole phrase is simply what the Hebrew idiom 
allows it to signify, viz. “One shall have no need to teach another.’ 
The repetition of the sentiment, by τὸν πολίτην αὑτοῦ and τὸν ἀδελφὸν 
αὑτοῦ, belongs merely to the poetic parallelism of the original Hebrew, 
which expresses the same thought in two different ways; as is con- 
stantly done by the synonymous parallelisms of the Old Testament. 

Ὅτι navres.... μεγάλου αὐτῶν, for all shall know me, from the 
least to the greatest, 1. 6. all of whatever rank or condition, high or low, 
rich or poor—all classes of people, shall have a knowledge of God. 
Afixoov and μεγάλου here refer to condition, rather than age. 

The writer does not mean that religious instruction will be altogether 
superseded, when the happy period arrives of which he speaks; but that, 
inasmuch as the laws of God will be infixed upon the hearts of his peo- 
ple and engraven upon their minds, none will be ignorant, as in former 
times, of his true character and the requirements of his law. The words 
are not to be urged to a literal explanation. The meaning of the whole 
plainly is, that the knowledge of true religion or of God should become 
universal under the new covenant, so that no one might be found who 
could properly be addressed as knowing nothing of the true God. 
Moreover the implication contained in this, is, that under the old cove- 
nant many had been thus ignorant; a fact highly credible, considering 
the frequent lapses of the Jews into a state of idolatry. 

(12) “Ore ἵλεως Eoouoe... . ἕτε, for Twill be merciful in respect to 
their iniquities, and their sins and their transgressions will I remember 
no more. “Ἴλεως, propitious, mild, clement, governs the Dat. ταῖς aduxi- 
acc, and (like M2ON to which it corresponds) designates the idea of read- 
iness to pardon, or to deal mildly with, offenders. 

Τῶν ἀνομιῶν αὐτῶν is not in the Hebrew, nor in the common Sep- 
tuagint, nor ‘Vulgate, Syr. Copt. Ethiop. The Hebrew has only pnxwtd, 
to which τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν αὐτῶν answers in our text. It is difficult, or 
rather impossible, now to determine whether τῶν ἀνομιῶν αὐτῶν was 
originally inserted by the writer of our epistle, or crept in afterwards 
from some edition of the Septuagint which contained it. But whether 
it be admitted or excluded, it makes no difference in the sentiment of 
the passage ; the first clause of which is the first member of a poetic 

54 


422 HeBREws VIII. 12, 19. IX. 1. 


parallelism, to which the second clause corresponds, echoing the same 
sentiment. ἽἼλεως εἶναι ταῖς ἀδικεαῖς means to be forgiving, ready te 
pardon ; and ov μνησϑ ἤναι τῶν ἀνομιῶν means to pass sins by unpun- 
ished, to treat offenders as though their sins were forgotten. 'The ex- 
pression, when applied to God, is altogether anthropopathic; but so are 
most other expressions which speak of him as acting in relation to such 
subjects. 

Thus far the quotation from Jeremiah, in order to prove that a new 
covenant, better than the Mosaic one, was to be made with the people 
of God. The writer now adds, as a comment on what he had quoted, 

(13) ἣν τῷ deyew.... πρώτην, in saying a new [covenant], he 
represents the first [covenant] as old. Of course, if the new one is to 
take the place of the former one, the former is considered as obsolete. 
Tlexadaiwze, like the Hebrew Piel and Hiphil, means to represent a 
thing as old or as superannuated; for in no other sense did the words 
just quoted make the former covenant old. 

Now follows the deduction of the apostle from this. 170 δὲ παλαιουύ- 
μένον... ἀφανισμοῦ, now that which has become old, and is advancing 
in age, is near to dissolution. IIahavow is more usually applied to 
things, and ynoaoxw to persons. ‘The use of two synonymous words 
here, serves merely to strengthen the representation, and is equivalent 
to saying, ‘ that which is very old.’ 

᾿“΄φανισμοῦ, lit. disappearing, vanishing. Applied to a law or dis- 
pensation, it means abolition or abrogation. ‘The argument of the 
writer is thus: ‘ What is very old, is near dissolution; but the prophet 
Jeremiah has represented the former covenant as πέπαλαιουμένην ; 
therefore it is near dissolution, or it is about to be dissolved or abrogated. 
Hence the necessity of a new covenant in its place. 


CHAP. IX. 


For an illustration of the course of thought and reasoning in this 
chapter, see p. 357 seq. above. 

(1) Hive μὲν οὖν καὶ ἡ πρώτη... .. κοσμικὸν, moreover, the first 
[covenant] had both ordinances of service and a sanctuary of a worldly 
nature. Meév οὖν, like μὲν δή, is often used in transition to a new sub- 
ject, or to a new part of one; see Passow on μὲν οὖν. So here we may 
render μὲν οὖν, now or moreover; see in Acts 1:18, 9: 31. 15: 30. 
17: 30, 23:22. In the same manner we may render οὖν (which is a 
very common continuative) provided we take μέν here as the sign of 


HEBREWS IX. 1, 2. 423 


protasis, of which v. 11 seq. is the apodosis. And this the nature of the 
discourse seems to require. Καί, as it now stands, seems to belong to 
ἡ πρώτη ; and if so, it must be construed only in its intensive sense, 
(intendit sive auget, Bretsch.). But what can be the object of intensity 
here, it is difficult to see. I have, on the whole, thought it more conso- 
nant with the object of the writer, to construe it as having relation to 
the τέ which follows, (although the natural order would be, τὲ... καὶ). 
Accofdingly I have rendered it both. That καί and τὲ sometimes 
stand in the order here presented, and that they are separated by inter- 
vening words as here, see Passow’s Lex. τέ, 3. ὁ. 

Μ πρώτη, i.e. διαθήκη, comp. 8: 6, 7, 13; not γ πρώτη σχηνή, 
as some critics have maintained, 

“Ζικαιώματα λατρείας means a service arranged, conducted by rules 
or ordinances. Aatosia designates the public service of the temple or 
tabernacle; and δικαιώματα the rules or precepts which regulated it. 
“ Aytov usually means sanctuary or holy place, in a general sense ; and 
so it may be taken here, viz. for the whole temple. But it may also be 
understood as referring to that spacious apartment. of the temple, in 
which the various articles of sacred furniture were placed that are im- 
mediately mentioned; which, however, is called by the writer yea, in 
v.2. Ifit be the same as ἄχεα, itis distinguished from ἅγεα ἁγίων in 
the third verse ; which means the apartment behind the veil, where the 
ark, etc., were deposited. Koopexoy (from κόσμος) means pertaining 
to this world, of a terrestrial nature, i. 6. material, the opposite of ov 
χειροποίητον in 9: 11, 24, and 1. 4. χειροποίητον; the opposite also of 
“ηρουσαλὴμ ἐπουράνιος, 12: 22, comp. Rev.21: 2. Some critics have 
explained zooucxov by formosum, illustre, because κόσμος sometimes 
signifies, ornatus, elegantia. But the adjective which designates the 
meaning correspondent with these significations, is xdoucos, and not 
κοσμιχός. ‘The common laws of Greek classical usage would demand 
the article before xooucxov, Winer’s N. Test. Gramm. § 19. 1 seq. ed. 3. 

(2) Σκηνὴ γὰρ... πρώτη, for an outer tabernacle was constructed. 
Σχηνή evidently designates here only one apartment of the ἵξρον or 
sacred building; comp v:3, where another σκηνή is described. “H 
πρώτη means that which first presents itself, viz. to the worshipper as 
he enters the outer court of the building, 1. 6. the outer σκηνή or apart- 
ment, the most holy place being the znner one. We might expect, ac- 
cording to the rules laid down by grammarians concerning the Greek 
article, that either σχηνή would have the article, or πρώτη would omit 
it. Constructions, however, of the like kind as σκηνὴ ἢ πρώτη, are 


424 HEBREWS IX. 9. 


not without example in the New Testament; 6. g. Rom. 2:9 ἀνθρώ- 
mov τοῦ ἐργαζομένου; 2:14, ἔϑνη tTa.... μὴ ἔχοντα ; 5:5, πνεύ- 
ματος ἁγίου τοῦ δοϑέντος. See Rom. 8:33, 34. 1 Cor. 3: 7. Gal- 
3:21. 1 Thess. 1: 10. 1 Tim. 6:13. 2 Tim. 1: 8,9, 14. Heb. 6:7, 
etc., although all of these cases will not compare very exactly. See 
Gersdorf’s Beitrige, p. 355 seq. It happens in this case, (as in regard to 
most of the definite rules laid down about the use of the Greek article), 
that investigation shews the principle assumed to be by no means uni- 
form, and that the Greek writers were less regular in regard to this 
matter than the grammarians would fain have us believe. Bloom- 
field puts a colon after κατεσχευάσϑη, and throws 7] πρώτη into anoth- 
er clause ; which is well. Comp. Winer § 19. 4. 

* Ev ἡ ἥ τε λυχνία... . ἄρτων, in which [apartment] was the candle- 
stick, and the table, and the shew-bread. For a description of the can- 
dlestick, see Ex. 25: 31—89. 37: 17—24. The Hebrew word an- 
swering to λυχνία, is 77322. The τράπεζα is described in Ex. 25: 
23—29. The design of the table was, that the bread which was conse- 
crated to the Lord might be placed upon it. “Πρόϑησις τῶν ἄρτων, the 
exhibition of the bread, viz. before Jehovah, is described in Ex.25 : 90 
and Lev. 24:5—9. The earlier Hebrew name was D259 On}, 
presence-bread. It is also called ΠῚ 7 and m2 y277 ONS, the ar- 
rangement of bread or the bread arranged, in reference to the manner 
in which it was exhibited upon the table; see Lev. 24: 5, 6. 

The altar of incense is omitted in this catalogue of sacred utensils; 
as it is omitted in the draft for building the tabernacle by Moses, in 
Ex. xxv. But it is mentioned in Ex. 30: 1, and 87: 25—28. 35: 15. 
So also the altar of burnt offering is omitted in Ex. xxv., although it is 
mentioned in Ex. 35: 16. 38:15; and many other utensils of the taber- 
nacle also are omitted in Ex. xxv., which are mentioned in Ex. xxxv. 
Our author expressly says (v. 5), that he shall not attempt to mention 
all the particulars of sacred apparatus for the temple service. 

“Hees λέγεται ἅγια, which is called ἅ yc, i.e. UIP, ὉΠ. the 
holy place, the sanctuary ; a different apartment, in the ἵερον or sacred 
enclosure, from the ἅγεα «y'wy mentioned in v. 3. “47a in our text, 
is plural ; for the singular fem. is written ayia (with the accent on the 
penult), not ἅγια. ‘The writer means to say that 7 πρώτη σχηνή, the 
outer apartment of the temple, was called «yee. The plural is used 
here in order to designate one apartment in the temple, just as it is in 
ἅγια ἁγίων (not ayia ayiwy), v. 3; and both are conformed to a usage 
that is common in Hebrew, which not unfrequently employs the plural 


nesrews IX. 3, 4. 425 


to designate the sanctuary. νὰ g. ΒΕ ΘΠ SRA sop, i.e. ἅγια 
ϑεοῦ. Ps. 68: 86, ΤΡ, ἀγιά σου. Lev. 21: 29, WIP, ἅγιά 
μου, etc. 

(3) Mera δὲ τὸ δεύτερον καταπέτασμα, and behind the second vail. 
A description of this vail is given in Ex. 26: 31—83. 36:35, 36. As 
the inner vail is here called δεύτερον, the necessary implication is, that 
there was a πρῶτον also; and accordingly we find it described in Ex. 
26: 36. 37, and Ex. 36: 37, 38. The Hebrew name of the znner vail, 
(which separated the most holy place from the ἅγεα or common sanc- 
tuary), is NQ7D, as given in Ex. 26: 31—33, and in the corresponding 
Ex. 36:35, 36, also Lev. 16:2. The Hebrew name of the outer vail, 
which served as a door for the tabernacle, i.e. which covered the en- 
trance-passage to the first ¢yvov, is F072. The former is called κατα- 
métaouc by the Bits hg (as the apostle calls it in our text), in Ex. 
26: 31, 33. Lev. 16: 2. Ex. 36: 35, and also by the Evangelists, Matt. 
27:58. Mark 15: 88; the latter, both καταπέτασμα and ἐπίσπασ- 
τρον, in the passages connected with those just cited. ‘There was a 
third external covering or curtain for the tabernacle, (called “3777, 
ὩΣ, in Ex. 26: 1, 2 seq.), which Dindorf says. was a third vail ; 
but which, manifestly, Paul does not reckon to be such; nor Moses, in 
the passages above cited. 

Σχηνὴ ἢ λεγομένη ἅγια ayiwv, the apartment which is called the holy 
of holies, i.e. the most holy place, i. q. DWIPM wtp, a common form 
of expression in Hebrew, in order to denote intensity. In regard to ἡ 
λεγομένη after σχηνὴ without the article, see Winer § 19. 4 seq. 
Kateozevaodn is understood after σχηνή; see v.2, where it is ex- 
pressed. The inner sanctuary was called most holy, because there was 
the ark of the covenant, the mercy seat, etc.; and there the presence 
of Jehovah (which the Jews in later times called 7292) was peculiar- 
ly manifested, so that this was regarded as his particular dwelling place, 
m3 1372. 

(4) Χρυσοῦν ἔχουσα ϑυμιατήριον, containing the golden censer. 
See Excursus XVI. 

Kai τὴν κιβωτὸν... .. χρυσίῳ, and the ark of the covenant, covered 
on every part with gold. Κιβωτός was a coffer or chest, made of wood, 
and covered with laminae of gold; a description of which is given in 
Ex. 25: 10—16. 37: 1—5. It is called the ark of the covenant; be- 
cause in it were deposited the two tables of the covenant, (m2, see on 
διαϑήκην in 8:8, and comp. Deut. 4: 13. 9:9, 11); which tables are 
also called the two tables of testimony, i.e. of statutes, τη Στ ΠΤ 72U, 


426 HEBREWS ΧΙ. 4, 5, 


Ex. 31:18. Both the terms n93 and naz plainly mean Jaws, stat- 
utes, or precepts, in this case, and both refer principally to the ten com- 
mandments; see 1 K.8:9, and Deut. 10: 1—5. 2 Chron. 5: 10. 
Gs. 

‘Ev ἢ στάμνος χρυσὴ ἔχουσα τὸ μάννα, in which [ark] was a golden 
pot containing the manna, The fact to which this alludes, is describ- 
ed in Ex. 16:32—34; where the στάμνος is called simply ni2is, Ke 
pot, urn, vessel for safe keeping. Nothing is said, indeed, of its being 
golden in the Hebrew ; but the Septuagint render n2¥2% by στάμνον 
χουσοῦν. Of the fact that it was so, no one will be disposed to doubt, 
who reads a description of the furniture of the most holy place, and 
finds that almost every thing within it was either pure gold, or was 
overlaid with gold; e. g. the ark, Ex. 25: 11; the mercy seat, 25: 17; 
the cherubim 25: 18; the pillars and hooks for the vail that separated 
the inner sanctuary Fei the other, 26: 31, 382. Who now can ration- 
ally suppose, that the urn containing manna, and the censer used 
on the great day of atonement, were not also golden? See Excursus 
XVII. 

Mavve, see on this word, Rosenm. on Ex. 16:15, where the various 
derivations of the word are considered; the various species of manna 
described ; and the fact shewn, that the supply of this food for the Is- 
raelites in the wilderness, was understood by the writer of the narra- 
tion in Exodus to be miraculous. 

Kai ἡ ῥαβδος Aaomy ἡ βλαστήσασα, and the rod of Aaron which 
budded. See Num. 17: 1—10, and what is said respecting this rod 
and the pot of manna, in Exc. XVII. 

Koi αἱ πλάχες τῆς διαϑήκης, the tables of the covenant, means the 
stone tablets on which the ten commandments were inscribed, and 
which were deposited in the ark, Ex. 31: 18. 32: 16. 34: 28, where 
the words of the covenant are expressly said to be the ten command- 
ments; Deut. 10:1, 2. 1K.8:9. 2 Chron.5:10. The writer as- 
serts, therefore, that the pot of manna, the rod of Aaron, and the two 
stone tablets on which the ten commandments were inscribed, were all 
laid up originally in the χεβωτός. 

(5) Ὑπεράνω δὲ αὐτῆς χερουβὶμ... .. τὸ ἱλαστήριον, and over it 
[the ark] were splendid Crerubim, which overshadowed the covering of 
the ark. See the description of the Cherubim in Ex. 25: 18—20. 1 
K. 8:6, 7. 1 Chron. 28: 18. That Cherubim were symbolical images 
or representations, is quite plain from comparing the various descrip- 
tions given of them in different passages of Scripture; e.g. Ex. 25: 


nEBREWS IX. 5, 6. 427 


18—20. 26:31. 1K. 6: 23—29, 32, and Ezek. 1. and x., particular- 
ly 10: 20—22. 1 understand the word δόξης as referring to the splen- 
dour of these symbolical figures, which were covered with gold through- 
out, Ex. 25: 18—20. 1K. 6:28. Some understand δόξης of the glory 
which was displayed under and around them; to which they suppose a 
reference to be made in Ps. 80: 1 [9]. 

Κατασκιάζοντα refers to the outstretched wings of the Cherubim 
over the ἱλαστήριον, as described in the passages above quoted. “JAao- 
τήριον here means, the lid or covering of the κεβωτός, which was pure 
gold, Ex. 25: 17,21. In Hebrew it is called nm =D, which the Sev- 
enty have rendered ἱλαστήριον, in Ex. 25: 17,21. As 42> means to 
cover sin, i. 6. to make atonement for it, so M2D may very naturally be 
rendered ἱλαστήριον, since it was by sprinkling blood upon this ἱλασ- 
tyovov, by the high priest, that atonement was made, Lev. 16: 14. 
““λαστήριον, understood in reference to this, might be translated the 
place or instrument of propitiation, or (with our English translators) 
mercy-seat. It was over this that the divine glory was seen, i. e. a su- 
pernatural, excessive brightness; and hence God was supposed to be 
seated on it as his throne, and from it to dispense his mercy, when atone- 
ment was made for the sins of the people by sprinkling it with blood. 
Hence our appellation, mercy-seat. 

Περὶ Gy .... μέρος, respecting which things it is not my present de- 
sign to speak with particularity. δῶν here refers to the various articles 
of sacred furniture, which he had just been mentioning. He means to 
say, that a particular description of these (and of all the various utensils of 
the sanctuary) and their symbolical uses, is not what he intends to give ; 
i. 6. he shall content himself with merely having suggested those which 
were already named. 

(6) Tovrwy δὲ οὕτω κατασκευαζομένων, now these things being thus 
prepared. Kataoxsvatw is also, to build or construct. But in our 
phrase it means more. It designates not only the fabrication of the va- 
rious utensils above named, but the adaptation of them to their respec- 
tive purposes, and the arrangement of them in the order which the rites 
of the sanctuary required. a 

Lig μὲν τὴν πρώτην... ἐπιτελοῦντες, the priests performing the 
services entered continually into the outer tabernacle. IToaxny, that 
which is first approached, i. 6. owéer, as in v. 2 above. Aatgetas, pub- 
lic religious services; see on v. 1 above. Acanavios, every day, with- 
out intermission, constantly and often. This the priest did, in order to 
make the morning and evening oblations and sacrifices; and also to 


\ 


428 HEBREWS IX. 6, 7. 


present the private offerings of individuals. 77ἐν is the usual sign of 
the protasis of a sentence here ; to which δὲ in the apodosis, v. 7, cor- 
responds. J/¢r, in such a case, is incapable of a translation that cor- 
responds with its use in the original. It is easy to see, that there is not 
only a correspondence between the two parts of the sentence above 
mentioned, but also an antithesis between them. 

(7) Eig δὲ τὴν dsvtégay .... ὃ ἀρχιερεύς, but into the second [viz. 
σκηνήν, tabernacle, apartment] the high priest only [entered], once ina 
year; comp. Lev. 16:2. Aevrégav implies σκηνήν. “Anat means 
either simply once, as ἅπαξ καὶ δίς, once and again; or it means (as 
here) once only, once for all, i.e.on one occasion, or on one day; for this 
is all that can be meant. Tov ἐνεαυτοῦ is the Gen. of time, the Gen. 
being commonly used in order to designate the time when or how often. 
On the great day of atonement, it appears that the high priest went 
thrice into the inner sanctuary, Lev. 16: 2, 12, 14, 15; to which, per- 
haps, may be added once more, in order to bring out the golden cen- 
ser; and this accords well with the Jewish tradition, viz., that the high 
priest entered the sanctuary four times on the great day of expiation. 
However, it is quite possible that fire might have been carried into the 
most holy place on another censer, and then transferred to the golden 
one which belonged there. Comp. with the above, Ex. 30: 10. 

Οὐ χωρὶς αἵματος, not without blood. See Lev. 16: 14, 15, by which 
it appears, that the blood of a young bullock (Lev. 16: 3) and of a goat, 
was brought into the most holy place by the high priest, on the great 
day of atonement, and there sprinkled seven times upon the mercy seat 
and before it. 

Ὃ προσφέρει... .. ἀγνοημάτων, which he presented for his own sins, 
and for those of the people; see Lev. 16: 6, 11, 14—16. Προσφέρει 
designates the act of presenting the blood before the Lord, as indicated 
in Lev. 16: 14—16. That the priest was to make atonement for him- 
self, as well as for the people, is expressly declared in the verses above 
referred to. “Ayvonuatwy Wahl renders sins of ignorance. But 
plainly it is not of necessity limited to this confined sense. It means 
fault, error, sin generally considered ; so in Judith 5: 20. Sirach 23:2. 
51:19. Tobit 3:3. 1 Macc. 13:39. The LXX have sometimes us- 
ed it to express the Hebrew "3w72, from ΓΔ to err. In Lev. 4: 2, 
13, 22, 27, sins 733902 (through precipitancy) are mentioned, and 
atonement is directed to be made for them by sprinkling blood before 
the mercy seat, Lev. 4:6, 17. But this mode of making atonement, 
and this limitation of the kind of offences for which it was to be made 


HEBREWS IX. 7—9. 429 


in this peculiar way, seem to have been afterwards changed, and limit- 
ed in a different way, on the occasion of the death of the sons of Aaron, 
Lev. 10: 1, 2. 16: 1,2. It would seem, from Lev. τν., as if the sins 
442 had a special atonement made for them, in the inner sanctuary, 
emia limitation as to the number of times that the high priest might 
go there. But Lev. 16:2 restricted this custom; so that atonement 
for sin of any kind was made before the mercy seat coals once in a year, 
agreeably to Ex. 30: 10. 

(8) Τοῦτο δηλοῦντος .. .. ὁδόν, the Holy Spirit oe this, 
that the way to the most holy place was not yet laid open. 'The holy 
Spirit here mentioned, is that Spirit which guided the ancient prophets ; 
which taught Moses what arrangements to make for the service of God ; 
and which signified, by these arrangements, what the apostle here af- 
firms. Zovro may be construed with Ova understood, and so be trans- 
lated, by this; so Ernesti and Dindorf,. Ais rebus; Storr, wodurch, 
whereby. But must not διά, in such a sense, govern the Genitive? On 
account of this difficulty, it is preferable to render it as I have done. 

7ὴν τῶν ἁγίων ὁδόν means, the way to the heavenly or upper sanc- 
tuary. Through Jesus only, Jews and Gentiles have free access, at all 
times, to the mercy seat of heaven; comp. Eph.2: 18. Heb. 4: 16. 
This way was before obstructed by numerous ceremonial rites, and lim- 
ited as to times and persons. Of necessity such was the case. 

"Exe τῆς πρώτης σχηνῆς ἐχούσης στάσιν, while the first tabernacle 
had a standing ; i. 6. so long as the Jewish dispensation lasted. Πρώ- 
της σκηνῆς is here used in the general or unlimited sense, for the tab- 
ernacle or temple with its services. 

(9) “Hrsg παραβολὴ .... τὸν ἐνεστηκότα, which [has been] a type 
down to the present time. ΤΙ|αραβολὴ means symbol, similitude, image, 
1.6: symbolical representation of any thing; which is also the meaning 
of τύπος. But in the English language, type is used not for similitude 
merely, but for something under the ancient covenant, which was spe- 
cially designed on the part of God to be a symbol of some person or 
event, that was to exist or take place under the new one. Here, the 
preceding verse shews that the ancient tabernacle or temple was design- 
ed by the Holy Spirit to be a symbol, expressive of some important 
truths that had relation tothe New Testament dispensation. Of course, 
the rendering of παραβολὴ by type, is appropriate to express the idea 
intended to be conveyed by the writer. δὶς τὸν ἐνεστηκότα, down to 
the present time; εἰς, ad, usque ad, see Wahl on «6, 2. a. 

Aad ov dooe....durgsvorra, in which both oblations and sacrifi- 

δῦ 


430 HEBREWS IX. 9, 10. 


ces are presented, that cannot fully accomplish what is needed for the 
worshipper in respect to his conscience. Kat ὅν, in which, during 
which, viz. time; see Wahl on κατά, no. 2. Awoa te καὶ ϑυσίαι 
means, offerings of every kind which were presented to God. For te- 
λειῶσαι, see on τελείωσις, 7:11. The meaning is, ‘To render the 
mind of the worshipper secure of pardon for sin, and to produce that 
quiet which was connected with a well grounded ‘persuasion of this, 
and that moral purification which must accompany it.’ We have no 
one word to express all this in English. I have come as near to it as I 
am able to do, in the version which I have given. 

The whole verse shews very plainly, that our epistle was written 
while the temple rites were still practised ; consequently, before A. D. 
70. But by the phrase τὸν καιρὸν τὸν ἐνεστηκότα, the writer par- 
ticularly alludes to the age then present, in which the new or Chris- 
tian dispensation had begun. The whole sentence is as much as to 
say, ‘The Jewish ritual, from the commencement of it down to the 
present moment, has never been, and still is not, any thing more than a 
type of the Christian dispensation which has already commenced. All 
its oblations and sacrifices were ineffectual, as to removing the penal- 
ty due to sin in the sight of heaven, or as to procuring real peace of 
conscience. 

(10) Movoy ἐπὶ Bowduaor.... ἐπικείμενα, being imposed (together 
with meats and drinks and divers washings—ordinances pertaining to 
the flesh) only until the time of the reformation. A passage of great dif- 
ficulty in respect to its grammatical construction. Many writers have re- 
ferred δικανώμασιε to the δώρα καὶ θυσίαι mentioned in the preceding 
verse ; and then have found difficulty enough, (as well they might), in ac- 
counting for it how oblations and sacrifices could consist in meats and 
drinks and various ablutions. It seems quite evident, that v. 10 is de- 
signed to signify something additional to that which is mentioned in vy. 
9; while still it is to be regarded as connected with v. 9, and a contin- 
uation of it. “Lai βοώμασιε..... βαπτισμοῖς, I understand as a clause 
qualifying δικαεώμασι, i. 6. these words stand in the place of an adjec- 
tive designating wherein the dcxaewuara consisted; while σαρκὸς sup- 
plies another qualification, denoting to what the δικαιώμασι had rela- 
tion, viz. to the flesh or external part of man. Meats and drinks have 
respect to food which was deemed clean and unclean, under the Jewish 
dispensation ; and not (as some critics interpret the words) to the meats 
and drinks offered to the Lord. Most evidently βαπτίσμοῖς refers to 
the ceremonial ablutions of the Jews, which were concerned with ex- 
ternal purification; and βρώμασι καὶ πόμασι plainly have respect to 


neBrews IX. 10, 11. 431 


the same kind of purity. All this agrees perfectly with the scope of the 
writer. He had denied that the penalty due to sin in the sight of God, 
could be removed by any of the ¢emple offerings, v.9 ; and in this verse, 
he denies that the moral expiation required could be effected by any or 
all of the rites pertaining to external purification. Consequently there 
was, according to him, nothing in the Jewish ritual which could effect 
an atonement such as the sinner needed. 

Thus far the words of the first clause, which by themselves are not 
difficult to be understood. Next, for the connection and arrangement 
‘of the whole verse. This, as I now view the subject, after a repeated 
and recent examination, may be made out thus; viz. include in a pa- 
renthesis πὸ βρώμασι... δικαιώμασι σαρκός, and consider it as 
thrown in to augment the effect of the declaration at the close, and then 
μόνον... μέχρε καιροῦ διορϑώσεως ἐπικείμενα as closely connected 
together in sense. 6 whole will then stand thus: Oblations and sac- 
rifices are offered, which cannot fully accomplish what is needed for 
the conscience of him who performeth the services, being imposed (to- 
gether with meats and drinks and diverse washings—ordinances per- 
taining to the flesh) only until the time of the reformation.—That the. 
words admit of this construction, is plain. “L7/, with, together with, in 
addition to, (like the Hebrew >», upon, concerning, with, i. 6. in addi- 
tion to, etc.), is a frequent and undoubted sense of the preposition; e. 
g. ἐπὶ τούτοις, in addition to these things, besides this; ἄλλος ἐπ᾽ ἄλ-. 
An, one upon another; νεκροὶ ἐπὶ νεκροῖς, corpses upon corpses, i. 6. in 
addition to corpses; see Passow’s Lex. ἐπί, II.C. So in the New 
Testament: ‘‘ Other five talents have I gained ἐπ᾿ αὐτοῖς, in addition 
to them,” Matt. 25: 20; see other examples in Bretsch. Lex. ἐπί, II. 2. 
So in the Sept.: “ Lest coming he smite me, even the mother én? 
τέκνοις, together with the children, Ex. 32:11 (12). “They have 
devoured the mother ἐπὲ τέκνοις, together with the children,” Hos. 10: 
14.—In regard to the participle ἐπεκείμενα (neut. gender), there is no 
serious difficulty. The immediate antecedent is dwoa re καὶ ϑυσίαι, 
which take first a fem. participle, viz. δυνάμεναι, agreeing with ϑυσέαν 
(the last of the two antecedents); and then ἐπεέκείμενα (for so the best 
Codices read), which agrees in form with δῶρα the first of the two an- 
tecedents. Yet, although such a construction might be vindicated on 
this ground, I do not apprehend it is the true ground. I regard éme- 
κείμενα (neut. gender) as conformed to an idiom very common in the 
best Greek writers, e. g. in Plato and Thucydides, according to which, 
an adjective or participle, specially when separated by intervening words, 
is often put in the neuter gender, let the antecedent be of whatever gen- 


432 neBReEws IX. il. 


der it may. So Matthaei, remarking on the change of ἐπεχείμενα into 
ἐπιχείμεναι, as made by some critics, says: ‘‘ Nulla causa corrigendi 
erat; cum enim antecederet δῶρα καὶ ϑυσίαι, pluribus interpositis, ista 
omnia neutro genere complecti poterat Paulus per ἕπεκείμενα. Plura loca 
similia apud Thucydidem reperias.”” He might have added, apud Pla- 
tonem et multos alios. add merely, that while Dr. Knapp and some 
other critics of name adopt the reading δικαεώματα instead of δικαεώ- 
μασι, yet most Codices and Versions have the latter; and the latter, 
on the whole, seems to be altogether preferable. The whole verse, in- 
deed, is not without its difficulties, even at the best; but still, I think 
the construction now given to be the most facile and natural, and to be 
less liable to objections than any other ; and in this Kuinoel and Bloom- 
field also unite. 

Katoou διορϑωσεως plainly means, the time of the gospel dispensa- 
tion, called χρόνων ἀποκατάστασεως, in Acts 3: 21. Comp. Mal. 3: 1. 
4: 5,6. Is. 66: 22. 65:17. 51: 16. 


Thus much for the description of the earthly tabernacle and its sacred uten- 
sils, together with an exhibition of the inefficacy of the whole in respect to meet- 
ing the wants of sinners, and also an avowal of their temporary nature. They 
were intended only as the introduction to a new and better dispensation. {μέν 
in v. 1 be regarded as in a protasis, then the correlate (δέ) must be sought in v. 
11, where the apodosis begins. V.11.seems to be the sequel to v. 1, and is 
nearly related to it. 

The writer now proceeds to shew, that the tabernacle in which Christ offi- 
ciates, is ov χειροποίητος; not κοσμιεκός like that of the Jews. The antithesis be- 
tween the old and new tabernacles, their services and the respective eflicacy of 
them, is carried on, by the apostle, through the remainder of chap. IX., and 
down to chap. X. 19. 


(11) Χρεστὸς δὲ παραγενόμενος ..... ἀγαθῶν, but Christ being 
come, the high priest of future blessings. Χριστὸς... παραγενόμενος 
is Nom. to the verb εἰσῆλϑε in v. 12. If the δέ here be considered as 
standing in relation to «év in v. 1, this would represent the whole ar- 
rangements of the first temple or tabernacle as placed in antithesis to 
those of a spiritual or heavenly temple, with its high priest, offering, 
etc.; which corresponds with the representation in the sequel. 

" Aoyregevs τῶν μελλόντων ayadwy, lit. a high priest of good things 
to come, i.e. of blessings then future. The meaning is,* The high 
priest who procures blessings promised by the gospel.’ ‘The principle 
of interpretation is the same that is adopted in such phrases as the fol- 
lowing ; viz. the God of peace, i.e. who procures or bestows peace ; 
the God of consolation, i. e. who bestows consolation; the God of 
grace, i.e. who bestows grace; ἄρτος τῆς ζωῆς, i. gq. ἄρτος τὴν 
ζωὴν διδούς, etc. The Gen. τῶν μελλόντων ayatwr, is Gen. auctoris. 


HEBREWS IX. 11. 433 


Christ is here called the high priest who procures future blessings, by 
way of comparison with the Jewish high priest, who was μεσίτης (8 : 6) 
or éyyvog (7:22) between God and the people, and was the medium 
through which blessings were procured from God. 

Ava τῆς μείζονος... .. τῆς κτίσεως, through a greater and more 
perfect temple, not made with hands, that is not of this [material] cre- 
ation. «Σκηνή here (as in v. 2) most probably means, the outer apart- 
ment or court only of the heavenly temple. So we must understand it 
if we render διά through, as the best commentators and lexicographers 
do in this case. But to give it material form and shape, would be noth- 
ing less than to make it χεεροποίητος ; although the writer of our epis- 
tle expressly says, it is οὐ χειροποίητος. It is unnecessary, 
then, to inquire precisely what there is in the heavenly world, which 
constituted materialiter this greater and more perfect ouwler sanctuary, 
through which Jesus passed when εἰσῆλϑεν ἐφάπαξ εἴς τὰ ἅγια, v. 12. 
The comparison is made with the high priest of the Jews, who passed 

through the outer sanctuary when he entered into the inner one, upon 
the great day of atonement. The probability is, that the writer com- 
pared in his own mind the visible heavens, (through which Jesus passed 
in his ascension on high, 4: 14. 6: 20. 8: 1, 2), with the vail which 
separated the outer sanctuary of the Jewish temple from the znner one ; 
the clouds or sky (which conceal the temple above from our view) be- 
ing resembled to the vail of the inner temple. Be this as it may, he ex- 
plicitly declares that he does not mean a material sanctuary, visible to 
the natural eye, and corresponding in this respect to that upon the 
earth ; for he says, ‘it was οὐ χεεροποίητος. And lest this should not 
be sufficient to prevent misapprehension, he adds, ov ταύτης τῆς χτίσε- 
ὡς, 1. 6. not of the visible material creation, or not [like this creation] 
visible and material ; which is plainly implied by ταύτης. 

The version διά by Dr. Schulz and others (vermége, by virtue of), 
I am not able to comprehend. In what sense can it be said, that Christ 
εἰσῆλθεν ἐφάπαξ εἰς ta ayia, αἰωνίαν λύτρωσιν εὑράμενος, BY VIRTUE 
or a greater and more perfect tabernacle that was not material? which 
is the same as to say, “He entered into the adytum of the tabernacle 
above, by virtue ef a more perfect tabernacle.’ What or where was 
this? I do not aver that this has no meaning ; but I confess my ina- 
bility to discover what the meaning is. It would be well for Dr. Schulz, 
who has appended so many interrogation and exclamation points to ex- 
tracts made by him from Storr’s version of our epistle and from his notes 


upon it, to defend, or at least explain, such a version as that which 
gives occasion to these remarks. 


0 “ HEBREWS IX. 11, 12. 


There is, indeed, another construction of διά in this case, which, if 
it might be applied, would give a meaning that is tolerable. 4e@ is of- 
ten put before the Genitive of a noun, which indicates the manner or 
the circumstances in which a thing exists, or takes place, or is effected ; 
as all the lexicons will shew. In 2 Cor. 5: 10, the apostle says, ‘‘ We 
must all appear before the judgment-seat of Christ, in order that every 
one may receive ta διὰ σώματος, [according to] the things done αν the 
body.” Strictly considered, however, dca does not signify place here ; 
for διὰ σώματος means, in a corporeal condition. Now if we render 
the phrase in Heb. 9: 11 thus, 1n a greater and more perfect temple, we 
should make dea indicate the place where simply. This would afford a 
good sense, if we could philologically defend such a translation; but I 
find no sufficient authority to do this; for διά is used before nouns of 
place only to denote the place through which or by which one passes; 
see Wahl on διὰ I. 1. a. Besides, the circumstances τν which Christ 
entered the most holy place, are noted in v. 12; so that one would 
hardly expect to find them noted here. There, διά is used in a way 
that is not at all uncommon; e. g. ‘Christ entered the eternal sanctua- 
ry, οὐ Ov αἵματος τράγων καὶ μόσχων, but Ova τοῦ ἰδίου αἵματος. 
But I cannot see how δεὰ μείζονος zal τελειοτέρας σχηνῆς can be here 
construed as indicating the circumstances in which, or the means by 
which, Christ entered the eternal sanctuary. It is not associated by the 
writer with δ αἵματος τράγων and διὰ τοῦ ἰδίου αἵματος, as the par- 
ticles before these phrases clearly shew. Nor does the sense of the 
passage permit this; for what would be the sense of saying, “ By means 
of a more perfect tabernacle, Christ entered into the sanctuary of [the 
same] tabernacle” I see no tolerable way, therefore, of construing the 
passage, but by joining dua... . σκηνῆς with εἰσῆλθε, and construing 
it as I have done in the version. Compare the like usage of διὰ, in 
Matt. 2: 12. 7: 13. 8: 28. 12: 1, 43. Mark 11:16. Luke 4: 30. 35: 
19. 17: 11. Acts 9:25. 

(12) Οὐδὲ Ov αἵματος... τὸ ἅγια, not with the blood of goats and 
of bullocks, but with his own blood, he entered once for all into the 
sanctuary. ‘The Jewish high-priest, on the great day of atonement, 
carried with him into the inner sanctuary, (1) The blood of a bullock, 
which he sprinkled upon the mercy seat, Lev. 16: 14. (2) The blood 
of a goat, which he also sprinkled upon the mercy seat, Lev. 16: 15. 
Christ did not carry with him into the heavenly sanctuary the blood of 
bullocks and goats, in order to make atonement ; but he presented his 
own blood there, in order to make expiation. This, however, is not to 
be understood literally ; for as the sanctuary itself was οὐ ταύτης τῆς 


HEBREWS IX. 12, 13. ’ 435 


κτίσεως OF οὐ χειροποίητος, so the Saviour’s ἘΝ ΘΗΝ was ial upon 
Calvary, was not literally taken and carried by him into the heavenly 
temple. All that is material, is only a figure or emblem of that which 
is spiritual or heavenly. That dca before αἵματος means with, cum, 2 
is quite clear from the nature of the case; and that διὰ has such ‘a 
meaning, is clear from comparison with Lev. 16: 14, 15. 1 Cor. 16: 3. 
2 Cor. 2:4. Rom. 2: 27. 14:20. 8:25. Heb. 12: 1; comp. in vs. 
22, 25 below, the equivalent phrase ἐν αἵματι. Aé is adversative, but, 
when it follows a negative particle such as οὐδέ is here. “Lganag 
means here, once for all, once only. 

Aiwviay λύτρωσιν εὑράμενος, obtaining eternal redemption. Evga- 
μένος is not an Attic form of the | Aor. Middle. It seems to be an 
Alexandrine form of the 2 Aor. Middle voice made after the analogy of 
the 2 Aor. act. evga; see Winer’s Gramm. ᾧ 13.1. ed. 3. δυρίσκω 
often means éo obtain or acquire any thing. Here the act of entering 
the eternal sanctuary and presenting his own blood, is considered as the 
means by which the eternal redemption of sinners is obtained or accom- 
plished. Avremors, in the New Testament, means Liberation or re- 
demption ; i.e. liberation from the penalty due to sin, or redemption 
from the bondage and penalty of sin. It is called αἰωνίαν, because 
the redemption obtained is eternal in its consequences, or because it is 
liberation from a penalty which is eternal and an introduction to a state 
of endless happiness. The λύτρωσις effected by Christ needs no repe- 
tition ; when once made, the consequences are eternal ; as we may see 
in 9: 24—28. 10: 1, 2, 11—14. 

(18) Et yao τὸ αἷμα... .. κεκοινωμένους, for if the blood of bulls 
and of goats, and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling the unclean. The 
γάρ here introduces a clause, which assigns the reason why the blood 
of Christ should be so efficacious as to procure eternal redemption. ‘The 
blood of bulls and of goats, as employed for the purpose of purification or 
expiation, is described in Lev. 16: 14,15. It was also shed on other oc- 
casions as a sin-offering, Lev. 1: 2—5,10, 11. | Zuvgwr, in our verse, 
corresponds with μόσχων in v.12. Both words mean a bullock or a 
beeve ; and the Septuagint employ both Greek words to translate the 
Hebrew 744 and 4B. E. g. ταύρος for Viv in Gen. 49: 6, and for 12 
in Gen. 32: 16 [15]; μόσχος for “τῷ in Prov. 15:17, and for 72 in 
Lev. 4: 3—5. 

Σποδὸς δαμάλεως x. 7.4. See an account of the manner in which 
these ashes were prepared, in Num. 19: 2—9. In the last verse, the 
ashes are directed to be kept for a water of uncleanness, 771 722, i. 6. 
to be mixed with water which was to be sprinkled on the unclean, that 


436 HEBREWS IX. 13—14. 


they might be purified. It is also called, in the same verse, NNW, 4 
sin-offering, or (as our English version has it) a purification from sin, 
meaning a means of purification. Soin Num. 19: 19, 20, the person 
who had defiled himself, and neglected to have the “72 Ὑ sprinkled 
upon him, is pronounced unclean. Storr applies δαντίζουσα to αἷμα, 
as well as to σποδός. But (setting aside the difficulty of the grammatical 
construction as to concord) it does not appear, that the sprinkling of 
blood upon the unclean was a usual part of the Levitical rites of purifi- 
cation. The blood was sprinkled upon the mercy seat, and on the horns 
of the altar, and poured out before the altar. Nor is there any need of 
the construction which he adopts; for the sense is unembarrassed, if we 
follow the usual grammatical construction. “Povrifovee is indeed fem- 
inine, and σποδὸς masculine. But such anomalies in concord are very 
common in Hebrew, see Gramm. ὃ 189.5, 6. Besides, as the latter 
noun here (δαμάλεως) is feminine, it happens, as in some other cases of 
the like nature, that the grammatical concord (as to gender) is regu- - 
lated by the latter of two nouns in regimen. 

“Ayvater .... καϑαρύτητα, sanctifies in respect to external purifica- 
tion. “Ayvater, used in respect to external rites, denoted that the per- 
son rendered ἀγεαζόμενος was clean or purified from all ritual unclean- 
ness, 1. 6. that he had performed all the necessary rites of external puri- 
fication, so that he could draw near to God as a worshipper, in a regu- 
lar manner. Thus much, our author avers, was accomplished by the 
ceremonial rites of the law. If so, then greater efficacy is to be attri- 
buted to the sacrifice made by Christ ; as he proceeds to declare. 

(14) πόσῳ μᾶλλον... ἔργων, how much more shall the blood of 
Christ, who by an eternal spirit offered himself without spot to God, 
purify our consciences from dead works. In vs. 11, 12, Christ is re- 
presented as entering the heavenly sanctuary with his own blood, in or- 
der to expiate the sins of his people or to procure Avzemouy for them, 
i.e. deliverance from the penalty of the divine law. It is then in the 
heavenly world, in the tabernacle not made with hands, that the offer- 
ing of our great high priest is made. ‘There he presented himself as 
the victim that had been slain, 10: 10—12. 1:3. 7:27. Rev. 5:9. 
Eph. 5:2; and there his blood that had been shed, is virtually offered 
to make atonement ; not literally but spiritually, i.e. in a manner con- 
gruous with the spiritual temple in which he ministers. 

Theophylact thus explains this difficult passage: Οὐκ aycegevs τις 
προσήνεγκε τὸν Χριστὸν ἀλλ᾽ αὐτὸς ἑαυτὸν καὶ οὐ διὰ πυρὸς, ὡς αἱ 
δαμάλεις, ἀλλὰ διὰ πνεύματος αἰωνίου, ὥστε καὶ τὴν χάριν 
καὶ τὴν ἀπολύτρωσιν διαιωνίξειν, i.e. ‘no high priest made an offering 


HEBREWS. LX. 14. 437 


of Christ, but he of himself; and this, not by fire, as the heifers [were 
offered], but by an eternal Spirit, so that he might render grace and 
redemption eternal.’ Whether he means divine influence, or the divine 
Spirit, it would be difficult to decide. 1 am rather inclined to believe 
that he meant the former, and if so, he seems to have adopted the same 
sentiment with the more recent and able interpreters of our epistle. 
See in Excursus XVIII. | 

“Μαυτὸν προσήνεγκε. ‘The apostle seems to use σῶμα, ἑαυτόν, and 
αἷμα, as equivalent in regard to the sacrifice which Christ offered ; see 
and compare Heb. 1:3. 10:10. 9:12,14. 10:19. 9:26. The 
reason of these different expressions, may be found in the nature of the 
Jewish ritual. When the blood of an animal was presented before God, 
in order to make atonement, the body was also consumed by fire, so 
that the whole was offered in sacrifice. See Lev. 4: 6—12, 17—2I1. 
The use of either of the three words σώμα, ἑαυτὸν, αἷμα, as designat- 
ing the sacrifice of Christ, implies all that would be designated by em- 
ploying the whole of them ; 1. 6. when his blood was shed, his body was 
slain, i.e. he himself was slain. 

" Auomor, spotless, an evident allusion to the Jewish victims, which 
were required to be without spot or blemish. No other could be ac- 
cepted of God. So Christ, who was “holy, harmless, undefiled, and 
separate from sinners,” 7: 26, was ἄμωμον, i.e. a perfect victim, a 
lawful or acceptable one in the highest sense. 

Ααϑαριεῖ τὴν συνείδησιν ἡμῶν ano νεκρών ἔργων, shall purify our 
conscience from deadly works. Αι αϑαριξῖ is the Attic future for χαϑα- 
οἶσει. Συνείδησιν does not mean simply the conscience as a faculty 
of the soul, but the mind or conscious power of man, i.e. the internal or 
moral man. Nexowy in such cases usually means deadly, 1. e. having 
a deadly, destructive, condemning power. This may be the meaning 
here ; and so it is more usually taken, and so I have translated it. But 
as in v. 13 the writer had made mention of the ashes of a heifer, as one 
of the means of effecting external purification; and since, in Num. 
19: 11—19, these ashes are described as particularly intended to 
cleanse those who had been polluted by the touch of dead bodies ; may 
it not be supposed, that there is an allusion in the term νεκρῶν here 
to that fact? Dead works, in this sense, would be such as pollute the 
soul, as dead bodies did the persons of the Jews. Dead works, then, 
may mean sinful works; for it is from the pollution of sin, that the 
blood of Jesus cleanses. Any one who chooses, can adopt this sense, 
which is capable of philological justification. 

- 56 


438 neBRews IX. 14, 15. 


Lig τὸ λατρεύειν ϑεῴ Caves, so that we may serve the living God ; 
another allusion to the Jewish ritual. Before persons under the an- 
cient dispensation could present themselves in the presence of the 
Lord acceptably, they must have been subjected to ceremonial purifica- 
tion. What this prefigured, the blood of Jesus effects. It takes away 
the sinner’s moral pollution, 1. 6. Christ removes the penalty to which 
he was obnoxious, and sanctifies, by his Spirit, the soul of the penitent 
sinner; and thus he may draw near to God, and offer him an accepta- 
ble service. He is clean in a sense as much higher than the Israelite 
was, who had purified himself only externally, as the efficacy of Jesus’ 
blood is greater than that of goats and bullocks. 

(15) Kai διὰ τοῦτο... ἐστίν, on this account also, he is the media- 
tor of a new covenant. A passage about which much difficulty has 
arisen, and a variety of interpretations been proposed. Aca τοῦτος I 
understand as referring to the sentiment in v. 14. The sentiment 
stands thus: ‘As Jewish sacrifices rendered the offerer externally 
clean; so the blood of Christ purifies the moral or internal man, and 
removes the consequences of sin. On this account (διὰ τοῦτο), i. e- 
because the sacrifice of Christ produces an effect such as the Jewish 
sacrifices did not, he may be justly called the mediator of a new cov- 
enant, differing greatly from the old’ Comp. Heb. 8: 6—8, 13. 7: 
15—19. 

Aadryune καινῆς μεσίτης means the mediator of a new covenant, or 
the internuntius, JN>72, who (so to speak) negotiated such a covenant 
between God and man. See Gal. 3: 19, where Moses is called the 
μεσίτης of the former covenant, in a like sense. And the use of the 
word μεσίτης here, shews that δια ϑήκη in the present verse must mean 
covenant, and not (as a few have maintained) testament ; for what has 
a mediator (as such) to do with a testament? Let the reader turn back 
and compare 8: 6 seq., and he must be satisfied respecting the sense 
here given to δια ϑηκη. : 

‘But of what avail,’ the Hebrews here would very naturally inquire, 
“can this new covenant be to all those, who have lived in former ages 
under the Mosaic dispensation? You affirm that the ritual of the 
Mosaic law had no power to remove the spiritual penalty of guilt; do 
the patriarchs, then, and prophets, and just men of past ages, still lie 
under the imputation of the sins which they committed?’ By nomeans, 
answers the apostle. A new and better covenant than the Mosaic one 
has been instituted, under which real spiritual pardon for offences is ob- 
tained, which enures to them, as well as to us at the present time. 


HEBREWS IX. 15, 16. 439 


“Ong x. τ. 4, so that the death [of Christ] having taken place to re- 
deem from the punishment due to transgressions [committed] under the 
ancient covenant, those who have been called might be made partakers 
of promised cternal blessings. Θανάτου means the death of Christ. 
Tuy παραβάσεων means here the effects of transgression, i.e. punish- 
ment, penalty; just as the Hebrew nNwT and 712 mean not only sin, 
but the penalty due to it. Οἱ κεκλημένον (like ἐχλεκτοί) means, those 
who are called, invited, viz. to an actual participation of the heavenly 
inheritance. It is of course understood, that only those who are pious 
have such an inheritance promised to them. Comp. κλήσεως ἐπουρα- 
viov μέτοχοι, in Heb. 3:1. Ot κεχλημένον here refers to just men 
who lived in the times which preceded the gospel dispensation or new 
covenant ; as the antecedent member of the verse clearly shews. Ὡς 
αἰωνίου κληρονομίας, asa Gen. depends on ἐπαγγελίαν, not on κέχ- 
Anucvor, although such a separation is somewhat unusual; see on v. 
16, Gavaroy.... διαϑεμένου. “Enxayyehioy is best translated here, 
as in 6: 12, 15,17. 10:36. 11: 13, etc., promised blessings or proffered 
good. ‘The inheritance is called eternal (a¢wyiov), because the bless- 
ings procured by a Saviour’s blood for those who lived under the an- 
cient dispensation, are of a spiritual eternal nature; seev. 12. Such 
blessings could not be attained by any of the rites of the old covenant; 
it is only by virtue of what is done under the new, by Jesus, that the 
ancient worthies came to the possession of them. 

The sentiment which this verse contains, respecting the efficacy of 
atoning blood in regard to the sins of preceding ages, has an exact 
parallel in Rom. 3:25; where the blood of Christ is declared, by Paul, 
to have procured τὴν nageoty τῶν προγεγονότων ἁμαρτημάτων, the 
remission of sins committed in preceding times, as is plain from the an- 
tithesis (rw νῦν καιρῷ) in the following verse. Both passages com- 
pared, form a striking coincidence of a peculiar sentiment, which is no 
where else so clearly and directly asserted. 

(16) Ὅπου yao διαϑήπκη ... . διαθεμένου, for where there is a testa- 
ment, (i.e. where a testament becomes complete, éoyvet, ts valid), the 
death of the testator must take place. The sense given to διαϑήχη 
here, viz. testament or will, is beyond all doubt consonant with the wsus 
loquendi of the Greeks; although in the Septuagint and New Testa- 
ment no example of this usage occurs, excepting in the present passage. 
All the lexicons will supply proof that the meaning testament is a com- 
mon one in classical Greek, and Kuinoel (in loc.) has quoted abun- 
dantly to this purpose ; which, however, seems to be superfluous. ‘The 


440 HEBREWS IX, 16. 


Hebrew n"72 saawcdel: never has the sense alia testament. The real 
generic and pina meaning of διαϑήκη is arrangement, disposition, 
or disposal of any thing. | Hence secondarily, will, testament, also com- 
pact, covenant, league, agreement, etc. The yao here is before a clause 
introduced for additional confirmation or illustration. ‘The occasion of 
here introducing δια ϑηχη in the new sense of testament, is stated in 
the summary prefixed to chap. 4: 14, to which the reader is referred ; 
p. 358 above. The whole comparison of testaments (διαϑῆκαι) among 
men, which confer a valid title to an inheritance, vs. 16, 17, seems evi- 
dently to spring from the mention of Christ’s death in the preceding 
verse, and of the confirmation thereby of the believer’s title to a heaven- 
ly inheritance. It is as much as to say, “Brethren, regard it not as 
strange, that the death of Christ should have given assurance of pro- 
mised blessings to believers—should have ratified the new dvatyxn of 
which he is the author; other διαϑῆκαν are ratified by the death of 
their respective testators, and only in this way.’ And then he goes on 
to shew, that even the ancient covenant, though it could not be called 
a διαϑήκη in all respects so well as the new one, was still ratified in a 
manner not unlike the new one, viz. by blood the emblem of deati, ys. 
18—22 

As the mode of illustration or comparison, in vs. 16, 17, depends 
entirely on the sense of the Greek word διαϑ 7x, and is not supported 
by any meaning of the Hebrew ΛΞ, if the sense above put upon 
διαϑήκη be well grounded, it must be atta that our epistle was orig- 
inally written in Greek, and not in Hebrew, as some of the ancient and 
a few of the modern critics have supposed. 

φέρεσθαι in the sense of intervening, happening, taking place, 
(which seems to be necessarily attached to it here), has, perhaps, no 
exact parallel either in classic or sacred usage. The old Latin ver- 
sion, and many modern critics, have rendered φέρεσθαι as given 
above ; but Ernesti, Valckenaer, and Kuinoel, deny that this sense can 
be confirmed by any ancient testimony. Grotius renders it by the 
verb expecto ; some others by in medium afferri; Kypke, annunciari, 
indicari; Bretschneider (in Lex.), ferri sermone, i.e. to be announced 
or shown; Carpzoff and Kuinoel, znsequi. But although examples of 
exact conformity in usage may be wanting in the classics, yet, as it 
seems to me, there are cases sufficiently near to the sense which I 
have given to the word, to justify such a translation ; e. σ. εὖ or κακῶς 
φέρεσϑαι means, to happen, turn out, or take sales: ἫΝ or ill; τὸ 
πράγματα ᾽χαχὼς φέρεται, and εὖ φέρεται ἡ γεωργία (Xen.), things 


HEBREWS IX. 16, 17. 441 


happen badly, the husbandry turns out well. Analogical with this is 
the meaning of τὸ φέρον destiny, τὸ φερόμενον sors, fortune. Or if 
one is not satisfied with these analogies, he may adopt the sense οἵ 
φέρεσϑανι in the passive, and render it should be suffered, borne, a com- 
mon sense of the word ; or should be introduced, i. 6. be interposed ; or 
be accomplished, i. e. happen or be brought about. 

If the reader finds any difficulty in admitting, in v. 15, the wide 
separation of ἐπαγγελίαν and κληρονομίας, he will now perceive a 
separation of the same nature, in respect to ϑάνατον and διαθεμένου, 
about the relation of which no possible doubt ean be rationally enter- 
tained. In regard to this last word, it is a participle (used as a noun) 
of Aor. 2. Midd. voice, and means festator. 

(17) Ζιαϑήκη yao ἐπὶ νεχροῖς βεβαία, for a testament is valid, in 
respect to those who are dead. ‘Ei is not unfrequently employed to 
denote after, viz. in respect to time; e.g. Acts 11:19, ἐπὶ ὡΣιεφάνῳ, 
after the time of Stephen, as Wahl renders it; and so Mark 6: 52, ἐπὲ 
τοῖς ἄρτοις, after the loaves, i.e. the miraculous feeding of several 
thousands with them. But these cases are not altogether clear. In 
elassic authors, however, ἐπὶ τουτοῖς means, postea; so ἕπὲ τυφλῷ τῷ 
Aav0autde, after Dandamis became blind, Lucian in Tox. See Vigerus, 
p. 620. Matthiae, § 584. In accordance with this usage, many critics 
have translated the phrase under consideration thus: @ testament is 
valid after men are dead, or after death. This, no doubt, gives the 
general sentiment of the passage; but after all, the explanation of ἐπὲ 
νεχροῖς in this way is somewhat forced, and I prefer that given in the 
translation, which conveys the like sense. Or the phrase may be constru- 
ed in this way, viz. ἐπὶ νεχροῖς, interventu mortis testatorum. So Kui- 
noel ; and this comes in effect to the meaning which I have given of ἐπέ; 
which is often employed, when joined with the Dat., in expressing the 
condition in or under which any thing takes place or happens; e. g. 
ἐπὶ νηπίῳ μοι τέϑνηκεν, he died whilst or when 1 was a child. 
So here: ‘a testament is valid when they [the testators] are dead.’ 

Those who render διαϑήκη in vs. 16: 17, by the word covenant, con- 
strue νεχροῖς here as applicable to dead sacrifices, i.e. victims slain in 
order to confirm a covenant. But it is a conclusive objection to this 
exegesis, that νεκρός never means the dead carcase of an animal, but 
the corpse of a human being. 

"Ene... διαϑέμενος, since it is of no avail while the testator is liv- 
ing. My ποτε is stronger than the simple negative μη; and one might 


442 HEBREWS IX. 17. 


well translate, since it is of no avail at all. °Jozvev, here first expressed, 
seems to be implied after διαϑήκη in v. 16. 

The amount of the comparison in vs. 16, 17, is, as before stated, that 
as διαϑῆκχαι (testaments) among men are ratified by death, so did the 
death of Christ (which the writer had just mentioned, v. 15) ratify the 
new διαϑήκη which he made, and give a valid title to the heirs who 
were to receive the inheritance. 

The reader should know, before vs. 16, 17 are dismissed, that not a 
few commentators of distinction have rendered διαϑηήκη covenant here, 
as well as in v. 15; e. g. Pierce, Michaelis, Macknight, Steudel, Schole- 
field, and others; and Mr. Bloomfield in his recent work, pronounces 
this opinion probable.* My difficulties in admitting it are insuperable ; 
and they may now be very summarily stated. (1) It is yet to be made 
out, that no covenants were valid, except those made by the intervention 
of sacrifices. Most clearly these were exhibited only in covenants of a 
peculiarly solemn and important nature. See Ruth 4:7. Deut. 25: 7, 
9. Gen. 23:16. 24:9, etc. The proposition is too general here (ὅπου 
διαϑήκη) to admit of limitation merely to covenants of a special nature. 
Even in regard to them, it remains to be shewn that the sacrificial rite, 
specially in later times, was deemed to be necessary. Where is this 
seen, in solemn compacts and treaties so often made, as represented in 
the books of Kings and Chronicles? An oath is the general sanction. 
(2) Ζιατίϑημι and διαϑέμενος cannot properly be rendered mediate 
and mediating sacrifice. ‘They have no such meaning any where else. 
Avadeuevos must mean either a testator, or else a contractor, i. e. one 
of two covenanting parties. But where is the death of a person cove- 
nanting, made necessary in order to confirm the covenant? (3) lVé- 
zootg means only dead men; but men surely were not sacrificed by the 
Jews, as a mediating sacrifice in order to confirm a covenant. Of 
course it is impossible to support the exegesis of Pierce and others, in 
the way of philological argument. 

If it be asked, how the writer could insert γάρ in v. 16, unless he 
viewed it as closely connected with v. 15, and as assigning a ground or 
reason of the sentiment there stated; my answer is, that there is a con- 
nection. 7180 in v. 16 introduces a clause, which is to illustrate and 


* Several letters from three or four highly esteemed friends, have vindicated 
the like sense and commended io me a review of this subject. I thank them 
most sincerely for their suggestions and their kind feelings; and 1 trust they 
will see in the remarks now made, that I have investigated anew the whole sub- 
ject. [trust also that they will be satisfied with my present views, when they 
have weighed my reasons for them. 


HEBREWs IX. 17—19. 443 


confirm what is stated in the preceding verse, viz., that the death of 
Christ secured redemption for the heirs of salvation. But this illustra- 
tion is borrowed from a meaning of δια ϑήκη different from that which 
the writer had already given, although equally well authorized, viz. tes- 
tament. It is as much as if he had said thus: ‘The death of Christ 
makes sure the promise; for (vag) if I should make the appeal to δεα- 
ϑήχη in its other sense, that of testament as well as of covenant, we 
may say that the death of a testator confirms, instead of invalidating, 
the favours he designs to bestow. So it is with the death of Christ. 
Instead of frustrating the purposes of his διαϑήκη, it has fully ratified 
and established them.’ 

Verses 16, 17, I take to be a parenthesis, containing a forcible illus- 
tration of the efficacy of the death of Christ thrown in ἐν παρόδῳ. 
Verse 18 I understand as resuming the subject, in the shape in which 
v. 15 left it. 

(18) “Oder οὐδ᾽... ἐγκεκαίνεσται, wherefore neither the first [cove- 
nant] was ratified without blood. The course of thought, as it stands 
connected with v. 15, seems to be this: “The new covenant of redemp- 
tion from sin, was sanctioned by the death of Jesus ; consequently, or 
wherefore (ὅϑεν), the old covenant, which was to be a type of the new, 
was sanctioned by the blood of victims. “Odev, wherefore, quare, qua 
ratione ; but the usual meaning is whence, im respect to place. The 
verb ἐγκαινίζω usually means to renew, to consecrate, to dedicate, etc. ; 
but here, although the sense of consecrating would answer well, it seems 
more appropriate to render it ratified ; so Chrysostom, βεβαία γέγονε; 
Theophylact, τὴν ἀρχὴν τῆς συστάσεως καὶ τῆς βεβαιώσεως ἔλαβε; 
Syriac Version, confirmed. "ΓΒ the old covenant, ratified by the effu- 
sion and sprinkling of blood, was typical of the new, which was ratified 
and made sure by the blood of Jesus its mediator. It was merely the 
blood of animals slain, which sanctioned the old and typical covenant; 
it was Jesus’ own blood which sanctioned the new covenant, established 
upon better promises than the ancient one held out. 

In this way of interpretation, vs. 16, 17 are to be considered asa 
parenthesis, the matter of which merely amplifies and illustrates the 
declaration contained in v. 15. 

(19) Aadndeions yao πάσης... τῷ haw, for when, according to 
the law, all the commandment had been recited by Moses to all the peo- 
ple. Jag introduces a confirmation of v.18. The πάσης ἐντολῆς to 
which reference is here made, means the statutes contained in Ex. 
xx—xxu. These Moses first recited memoriter to the people, after 


444 ueBRews IX. 17. 


they had been communicated to him by the Lord at Sinai, Ex. 24: 3. 
He then wrote them down, Ex. 24:4; and afterwards, on occasion of 
solemnly renewing the covenant on the part of the people to obedienee, 
he again recited them from the book of the law (n"7273 70), Ex. 24: 
7. Kote νόμον may mean here, according to the written law, i. 6. just 
as the ἐντολή was in the book of the law. But νόμον more probably 
refers to the command received by Moses, to communicate to the people 
the laws given to him, although this command is not recorded in the 
Scripture ; m which case the meaning would be, that agreeably to the 
divine command Moses read all the law to the assembled nation. 

υἹαβὼν τὸ αἷμα... .. ἐῤῥαάντισε, taking the blood of buliocks and of 
goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, he sprinkled both the 
book and all the people. This passage has occasioned no small perplex- 
ity to commentators ; inasmuch as Moses, in his history of renewing the 
covenant of the peop!e in Ex. xxiv., has said nothing of the blood of 
goats ; nothing, of the water and scarlet wool and hyssop; nothing, of 
sprinkling the book of the law with blood. Whence then did the writer 
obtain these circumstances? That they were not matters of new reve- 
lation to him, seems pretty evident ; for he plainly makes an appeal to 
circumstances, which, he takes it for granted, are well known to the 
Hebrews whom he addresses, and about which if he were to commit an 
error of statement, all his readers would be revolted. 

1. The blood of goats. In Ex. 24: 5, it is said that Moses sent 
young men who offered burnt offerings (>), and sacrificed sacrifices, 
which were peace offerings (2220 b N31) to Jehovah, even bullocks, 
(0.42). Now although goats are not mentioned here, yet it is quite 
probable, that the n>¥ on this occasion were goats; for >» is a holo- 
caust, i.e. an offering entirely consumed by fire; while the ΩΣ 
were mostly eaten by the offerers. That goats were used for all kinds 
of sacrifices, as well as bullocks, is quite evident from mere imspection . 
of the Levitical law. E. g. goats are named as an 75, Lev. 1: 10. 
4: 24, 28, etc., et alibi. It is altogether probable, then, that the holo- 
causts or N>¥, mentioned in Ex. 24: 5 as offered on the occasion of re- 
newing the covenant, were goats ; and were of course understood by a 
Jewish reader to be such, inasmuch as the 5°72>¥5 only are affirmed to 
have been bullocks. ; 

2. The water, scarlet wool, and hyssop. ‘That water was used as 
well as blood in order to sprinkle various things, is clearly implied in 
Lev. 14: 4—7 compared with Lev. 14: 49—52. Num. 19: 18. Ps. 51: 
7. Ezek. 36:25. The scarlet wool (nz>4n 728 scarlet), was connect- 


HEBREWS IX. 19. 445 


ed with a branch of hyssop (337%) in order to make a convenient in- 
strument for receiving and sprinking the blood and water. It is not, 
indeed, expressly mentioned in Ex. xxiv.; but it is doubtless implied ; 
for this was the common instrument by which the rite of sprinkling was 
performed. So in Ex. 12: 7, direction is simply given to sprinkle the 
door posts of the Israelites with blood; and afterwards, in v. 22, it is 
mentioned, that this was to be done with a bunch of hyssop. Soin Lev. 
14: 4—7, the nybdn "28 (i.e. ἔρεον κόκκενον) and the hyssop, are men- 
tioned as employed in the office of sprinkling ; and again, in Lev. 14: 
49—52. 'The hyssop is also mentioned in Num. 19: 18. Ps. 51: 7. 
It may well be presumed, that the reason why the writer of our epistle 
and the Hebrews of his time supposed that Moses made use of the wa- 
ter and hyssop and scarlet wool in the lustration of the people when the 
covenant was renewed, was because these were employed in the lus- 
trations whenever sprinkling was performed on other occasions. The 
convenience of the instrument in question, and the nature of the case, 
would very naturally lead to such an opinion; and who can doubt that 
it is well grounded ? 

3. The book of the law. Because nothing is said in Ex. 24: 3—8, 
respecting the sprinkling of the book, many commentators, e. g. Groti- 
us, Bengel, Koppe, Storr, and others, construe αὐτὸ ts τὸ βιβλίον with 
λαβὼν τὸ αἷμα, i. e.taking the blood... . and also the book of the law. 
So far as such a construction of the particle τέ itself is concerned, this 
might perhaps be allowed ; for τε is sometimes employed when it is not 
preceded by xa/ or δὲ in the clause immediately antecedent, as in Acts 
2:33. To justify the method of interpretation now in question, Storr 
appeals to Heb. 9: 1 and 12:2. But in the former case, τέ is preced- 
ed by zai; and the latter is a case where two verbs are connected. 
But in our verse zai follows βιβλίον, and seems necessarily to connect 
it with πάντα τὸν Awov. Now to say of Moses, λαθὼν ..... πᾶντα τὸν 
λαὸν, I suppose will not be contended for. Michaelis, Heinrichs, Din- 
dorf, Ernesti, Kuinoel, Bloomfield, and others, agree with the interpre- 
tation which I have given. Indeed καί and τὲ seem to be as necessari- 
ly related here, as e¢ and que are in Latin; and in fact they commonly 
sustain the same relation to each other. As to manuscripts, only one 
omits καί after βιβλίον ; and we are obliged, therefore, by the laws of 
criticism to retain it, whatever difficulties it may occasion to the inter- 
preter. 

In regard to the fact itself, viz. that Moses did sprinkle the book with 
blood, no intimation of it is given in Ex. 24: 3—8. Yet nothing can 

57 


448 HEBREWS IX. 19. 


be more probable than that such was the fact. Aaron and his sons 
and their garments were sprinkled with blood, when consecrated to the 
priests’ office, Ex. 29: 19—21. The blood of sacrifices was sprinkled 
upon the altar, Ex. 29:16. Lev. 1:5, 11. 3:2, 13; also before the 
vail of the sanctuary, Lev. 4: 6, 17; comp. Lev. 6: 27. 7: 14. δ: 15, 
19, 24, 30. 9:12, 18, et alibi. Philo (de Vita Mosis p. 675 B.) has 
a passage which speaks of all the various apparatus of the tabernacle 
as being anointed with holy oil, and the vestments of the priests being 
sprinkled with blood. So Josephus, also, speaks of sprinkling the gar- 
ments of Aaron and his sons with αἴματος τῶν τεϑυμένων, the blood of 
the slain beasts, and with spring water, and holy chrism, Lib. V. 6. 6. p. 
334. edit. Havercamp. All this serves to show, how common this rite 
of sprinkling with blood was in the Jewish ritual ; so common, that the 
writer of our epistle seems, with those whom he addressed, to have con- 
sidered it a matter of course, that when the people were sprinkled with 
blood, at the time of renewing their covenant to keep the precepts con- 
tained in the book of the law, Ex. 24: 8, the book itself, like all the 
sacred apparatus of the temple, was also sprinkled in like manner. 
Nothing could be more natural. ‘lhe people were consecrated to ob- 
serve the statutes of the book ; and the book was consecrated, as con- 
taining that sacred code of laws which they were bound to obey. 

If however, after all, one is not satisfied that Paul drew his conclu- 
sions from the analogies and probabilities just stated, he may easily 
suppose that tradition among the Jews had preserved the remembrance 
of the particulars described in our verse, on account of the very solemn 
and important nature of the transaction with which they are connected. 
It would be easy to suppose, with some commentators, that these par- 
ticulars were suggested in a miraculous way by the Holy Spirit to the 
mind of the writer. But this solution of the difficulty is not a probable 
one; because the writer evidently touches upon circumstances here, 
which he takes it for granted his readers will recognize and admit. If 
so, then these things must have already been matters of common opin- 
ion among the Hebrews; and consequently they were not now first 
suggested to the writer of our epistle in a miraculous way. At all 
events, there can be no serious difficulty in this case. The fact that 
Ex. 24: 3—8 does not mention the particulars in question, can be no 
more proof that they did not take place, than the fact that the Evangel- 
ists have not recorded the words of Christ, “‘ It is more blessed to give 
than to receive,’ would prove that he did not utter them. Whether 
Paul and the Hebrews knew these things by tradition, or believed them 


HEBREWS IX. 19, 20. 447 


from analogical reasoning, cannot be important. Enough that they 
were facts, and were appealed to as such by the writer, with full confi- 
dence that they would be recognized by his readers. 

To illustrate the principle de minimis non curat lex, it may be remark- 
ed, that Paul says simply λαβὼν τὸ αἷμα ; Moses, that “he took half 
of the blood, Ex. 24:6.” But surely if he did the latter, he did the 
former. Such expressions whether in sacred or profane writers, are not 
to be tortured in order to extract from them a metaphysical exactness— 
ne resecanda ad vivum. 

In the like manner I interpret πάντα tov λαόν. How, it has been 
asked, could he sprinkle three millions of people with the blood of a few 
goats and bullocks? In such a way I would answer, as “all Judea 
and Jerusalem went out to John to be baptized of him in the river Jor- 
dan, confessing their sins, Matt. 3:5, seq.” Must we understand by 
this, that all the infants, the non compotes mentis, the mutes, the sick, 
the infirm, the aged, all females, or literaily ad/ adult males, repaired to 
John in order to be baptized? And did αὐ (including infants and 
mutes) confess their sins to him? [If not, then there is no difficuliy in 
construing πάντα τὸν λαόν, in the case now under consideration. #fo- 
ses sprinkled blood on the multitude of the people, I take to be the simple 
meaning of the writer; not that all and every individual was actually and 
personally sprinkled. Some were actually sprinkled ; and these, being 
of the multitude, were representatives of the whole. Nothing is more 
common than to attribute to a body of men collectively, what belongs, 
strictly considered, only to certain individuals of that body. ‘Thus what 
the government of this country do, the Americans are said todo; and 
so of all other countries. 

(20) Agywr τοῦτο τὸ aiua....0 ϑεὸς, saying, This is the blood 
of the covenant which God has enjoined upon you. Another instance in 
which the letter of the Old Testament is forsaken, and the sense merely 
retained. The original in Ex. 24:8 is, NQD> VOR NIAID ΓΞ, 
Dp7y 1M, behold the blood of the covenant ‘which God has made with 
you. But — means see here or see this, and is equivalent to τοῦτο 
used as a demonstrative. he verb n> is rendered by the Seventy, 
διέϑετο ; by our author ἐνετείλατο. The reason of this probably is, that 
m-j2 in Ex. 24:8 means statutes, laws, as it evidently refers to the 
preceding statutes, in Ex. xx—xxu. God commanded that the people 
should observe these ; and with reference to this injunction, our author 
says ἐνετείλατο, which is preferable to the διέϑετο of the Seventy. 

10 αἶμα τῆς διαϑήκης means the blood by which the covenant, (viz. 


448 HEBREWS IX. 20, 21. 


the assent on the part of the people to the laws proposed, or rather, 
their promise to observe them, Ex. 24:7), was ratified. So common 
had it once been among the Hebrews, to ratify engagements by the 
blood of animals slain, that the usual idiom of the language was n> 
N72, to cut a covenant, i. e. to sanction one by cutting an animal into 
two pieces, and passing between them; see Gen. 15: 10. 31: 54. Jer. 
34:18. Ephrem Syrus testifies that the Chaldeans had the same 
usage, Opp. I. p. 161; as also Hacourt does, in respect to the Arabians, 
Histoire de Madagascar, p. 98, 350. The meaning of such a transac- 
tion seems evidently to be, that the persons, who make the engagements 
by passing between the dissevered parts of the slain animal, virtually 
say, ‘If we preserve not our engagement faithfully and without viola~ 
tion, then let us be cut in pieces like the animal between whose dissev- 
ered parts we now pass.’ The sprinkling of blood on the people, Ex. 
24:8, was ἃ solemnity of a similar nature. By it they were also cere- 
monially purified, and consecrated to God. 

(21) Aad τὴν oxnviy.... ἐρδάντιεσε, the tabernacle, moreover, and 
all the vessels for service, he sprinkled in like manner with blood. Καί, 
although a copulative here, still indicates another transaction different 
from that related in v. 19; for when the people were sprinkled with 
blood, the tabernacle was not built, neither were the σχεύη λειτουργίας 
yet made. The setting up and consecration of the tabernacle with its 
vessels, is related in Ex. xu.; yet nothing is there related of sprinkling 
them with blood, but only of anointing them with holy oil, Ex. 40 : 9— 
il. In the like manner, the anointing only of Aaron and his sons is 
there spoken of, as a rite preparatory to entering upon the duties of 
their office in the tabernacle, Ex. 40: 12—15; while nothing is said at 
all of their being sprinkled with blood. But if we compare Ex. 29: 20, 
21 and Lev. 8 : 24, 30, we shall see it to be certain, that Aaron and his 
sons were sprinkied with blood, as well as anointed with oil. In like 
manner it is probable, that the tabernacle and its furniture were sprin- 
kled with blood, although Moses has not mentioned it in Ex. xu. Jo- 
sephus says, “‘Both the tabernacle and the vessels pertaining to it, 
[Moses sprinkled and purified] with oil prepared as I have described, 
and with the blood of bulls and rams that were slain, one of each kind 
alternately, every day, Antiq. IIT.8. §6.” This seems to indicate, that 
Josephus had the same view as Paul, in regard to purifying the tab- 
ernacle. ‘The verbs in brackets, in the above translation, are drawn 
from the preceding clause, where we find ἔρῥαινεν agayvioas, purify- 
ing he sprinkled. They belong to the sentence translated, by dmpli- 
cation. 


HEBREWS IX. 21, 22. 449 


In regard to the fact itself, we may observe that it is rendered quite 
probable from analogy. ‘Then as to a knowledge of it by our author, 
nothing more is necessary, than the supposition that tradition had con- 
veyed the knowledge of this, as well as of many other facts, down to the 
time of Paul. The writer evidently appeals to facts, which were be- 
lieved by the Hebrews in general whom he was addressing ; and facts 
which, although not stated in the Old Testament, are by no means im- 
probable, and which no one surely has it in his power to contradict. 

(22) Kal σχεδὸν ἐν atiuare... νόμον, indeed, according to the law, 
almost every thing is purified by blood. Kat, imo, vero, yea, indeed. 
“Σχεδὸν πάντα, and not πάντα absolutely and simply ; for some things 
were purified by water, Lev. 16: 26,28. Num. 31:24; some by fire and 
water, Num. 31: 22, 23. But the exceptions were few, in which shed- 
ding of blood or sprinkling of blood was not required, in order to effect 
ceremonial purity ; see on v. 19. 

Kai χωρὶς αἱματεχχυσίας ov γίνεται ἄφεσις, and without shedding 
of blood, there is no remission [of sins], See Lev. 4: 2—6, 13—17, 22 
— 25, 27—30 and 31, 35. Under the Mosaic law, not every transgres- 
sion could be atoned for; consequently, remission of the penalty which 
the law inflicted could not, in some cases, be obtained. See Num. 15: 
30, 91. It was only he that sinned through a degree of ignorance or 
inadvertency, who could bring his sin and trespass-offering, Num. 15: 
27, 29; for cases of a different nature, comp. Lev. 4: 2, 13, 22, 27. 
The nN&T and DIN, sin and trespass, were atoned for in a civil and 
ecclesiastical point of view, by appropriate sacrifices which bore the like 
names. But in this case, the remission was only from a temporal pen- 
alty or calamity. It was not possible that such sacrifices could atone 
for sin, as viewed by the righteous Governor of the world. Such the 
nature of the case seems plainly to be; and so the writer of our epistle 
has expressly declared, in chap. 10: 4. God, as the king and head of 
the Jewish nation, granted remission of the penalty which the Jewish 
law inflicted in many cases, on certain conditions. But this had respect 
merely to the present world, and not to the accountability of transgress- 
ors before the tribunal of the universe in the world above. Even tem- 
poral forgiveness, however, could not be obtained χωρὶς αἱματεκχυσίας. 

It was thus that these ὑποδείγματα shadowed forth, to the ancient 
church, the necessity of atoning blood which possessed a higher virtue 
than that of beasts, in order to remove the penalty against sin that was 
threatened in respect to a future world. So the writer proceeds to tell 

_us, In the next verse. 


450 HEBREWS IX. 23. 


(23) ᾿“νάγκη οὖν... ταύτας, since then the images of heavenly 
things must needs be purified by such [rites], the heavenly things them- 
selves [must be purified] by better sacrifices than these. 17ἐν is here 
the mere sign of protasis. ᾿Ὑποδείγματα, copies, effigies, images, re- 
semblances, likenesses; meaning the tabernacle and temple, with all 
their sacred utensils, etc.; seeon 8:5. Tuy ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς means 
the spiritual objects of the heavenly world, of which the tabernacle with 
all its apparatus and services was only a symbol; see on 8:5. 7δύτοις 
designates such things, i. e. such rites and means of purification, as had 
been described in the preceding context. Audagifeodor refers to the 
ceremonial purification of the temple and its sacred utensils; e.g. of the 
most holy place, Lev. 16: 15, 16; of the altar, Lev. 16:18. Ex. 29: 
36,37; of the tabernacle, Lev. 16: 33, 20. This was to be done, be- 
cause the Israelites, sinful and impure, profaned these sacred things by 
their approach, Lev. 16: 19. 15:31. Num. 19: 19,20. And this be- 
ing done, God vouchsafed his presence in the tabernacle, and promised 
to dwell among the Israelites, Ex. 29: 43—46. ΑἹ] this was symbelical 
of the heavenly sanctuary and sacrifice. God permits sinners to hope 
for pardon and to approach him, only when they are sprinkled with the 
atoning blood of Jesus; and what was done on earth as a symbol, has 
been done in the heavenly world in reality, i.e. so as actually to pro- 
cure spiritual pardon and restoration to the divine favour. 

Ave δὲ τὰ ἐπουράνια ἐννν ταύτας. Aé, but, and in this sense it 
here marks the apodosis. “novgavee means the σχηνὴ αληϑίνη, 
ἣν ἔπηξεν ὃ κύριος, 8:2, ig. ἡ σκηνὴ οὐ χειροποίητος, 9:11. But 
how could the heavenly tabernacle χαϑαρίζεσϑαι, be purified? The 
grammatical construction of vy. 23 certainly requires us to supply this 
verb in the latter clause, since it is expressed in the former. But the 
word, of course, can be here used only in a figurative manner ; for the 
ἐπουράνια are not in reality impure. But as God was accessible to 
offenders in his sanctuary on earth, only when atoning blood had been 
offered ; so God in his heavenly sanctuary is accessible to sinners only 
through the blood of Jesus there offered, and there consecrating a new 
and living way of access to the throne of mercy. It is in this sense 
that the writer means to apply χαϑαρίζεσϑαι, viz. that of rendering the 
sanctuary approachable by offenders, and affording assurance of liberty 
to draw near to God (4: 16), rather than that of direct purification from 
uncleanness ; which could not be predicated of the heavenly sanctuary. 
It is the effect of the purifying blood of Jesus in regard to giving access 
to the heavenly sanctuary, which the writer means to compare with the 


HEBREWS IX. 94, 451 


of the earthly tabernacle could be properly approached by offenders, 
only when atonement was made. 

(24) That better sacrifices than those offered on earth by the Jewish 
priests, were required under the priesthood of Christ, necessarily results 
from the nature of the sanctuary in which Christ ministers. Ov yao 
εἰς χειροποίητα ἅγια... οὐρανόν, for Christ entered not into a sanc- 
tuary made by hands, which is only a copy of the true one, but into 
heaven itself. It is the entrance of Christ, as a priest, into the heavenly 
sanctuary, of which the writer is here speaking. That Christ performs 
the office of priest in the heavenly sanctuary, the writer has already 
intimated several times; see 9:9, 11. 8: 1—4. “Avriruma copy, im- 
age, effigy, form or likeness, corresponding to the original εὐπος shewn 
to Moses: in the mount, 8: 5. ᾿“ληθινῶν means that which is real, 
i.e. the original or heavenly sanctuary, of which the earthly one is a 
mere copy. In other words, they stand related as substance and shad- 
ow or image. The reality is in heaven; the emblem or mere similitude 
of it on earth. 

Nov éugarvioOnvat.... ἡμῶν, thenceforth to appear before God in 
our behalf. Νῦν means, from the point of time when he entered heav- 
en as our high-priest, onward indefinitely ; and it implies, that his office 
was continued while the writer was then addressing his readers. δΔμ- 
φανισϑῆναιν means, among other things, to present one’s self before a 
tribunal, for the sake of accusing or defending. In the former case, it 
is followed by κατά, e.g. Acts 24: 1. 25:2, 15; in the latter, it takes 
ὑπέρ after it, as in our text. The usual and full grammatical construc- 
tion would be wore éugaveodrveae. I have been able to find no similar 
usage of ἐμφανίζω among the Greeks. 

Τῷ προσώπῳ tov ϑεοῦ, the same as the Hebrew DT>N 1255, be- 
ing altogether Hebraistic. The whole comparison is taken from the 
custom of the Jewish high priest, who, when he entered the most holy 
place, was said to appear before God or to draw near to God, because 
the presence of God was manifested over the mercy seat, in the holy of 
holies, and God was represented, and was conceived of by the Jews, as 
sitting enthroned upon the mercy seat. Now as the high priest ap- 
peared before God, in the Jewish temple, and offered the blood of 
beasts for expiation on the great day of atonement, in behalf of the 
Jewish nation ; so Christ, in the heavenly temple, enters the most holy 
place with his own blood (v. 12), to procure pardon (αἑωνίαν λύτρωσιν) 


for us. This is what the writer means, by ἐμφανεσϑῆναν τῷ προσώπῳ 
τοῦ ϑεου ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν. 


453 HEBREWS IX, 25, 26. 


(25) But although there is a similitude between the atoning office of 
Christ and that of the Jewish high priest, yet there is a great difference, 
in some respects, between his manner of offering expiatory sacrifice 
and that of the Levitical priesthood. Οὐδ᾽ ἵνα πολλάκις... ἀλλοτρίῳ, 
yet not that he may frequently repeat the offering of himself, like the 
high priest, who every year enters into the sanctuary with blood not 
his own. This refers to the entrance of the high priest into the sanc- 
tuary, on the great day of atonement. “Av αἵματι ἀλλοτρίῳ, with the 
blood of others, i.e. with blood not his own; in distinction from the 
manner in which Christ entered the heavenly sanctuary, which was 
with his own blood, v. 12. Two points of difference then are here sug- 
gested, between the Jewish offerings and that of Christ ; the one, that 
they were often repeated, while his was made but once ; the other, that 
the high priest presented the blood of goats and bullocks, but Jesus his 
own bood. For the sense of ἕν here, see Bretschn. Lex. ἕν, 6. Ὁ. 

(26) “Enel ἔδει... .. κόσμου, for then he must needs have often suf- 
fered since the world began. 'That is, since the blood of Christ is ne- 
cessary to make atonement for sin, and to procure pardon for it from 
the righteous and spiritual Judge of men ; and since the blessings pro- 
cured by the death of Jesus, must inure as well to the benefit of the 
ages which preceded his coming, as to those which follow it, (see v. 15 
and Rom. 3: 25, 26); it follows, that if his sacrifice had not been of a 
different nature and value from that of the Jewish priests, it must have 
been continually repeated, from the very beginning of the world down 
to the time in which the writer was addressing his readers. We may 
of course add, that it must have continued to be repeated down to the 
end of the world, for the same reason. ‘This passage serves then to 
shew, that when Heb. 9: 15 and Rom. 3: 25, 26 are construed as hav- 
ing relation to the retrospective influence of the death of Christ, no doc- 
trine foreign to the conceptions of our author is introduced; for the 
verse under consideration is plainly built upon the ground of such a re- 


trospective influence. 
Nov δὲ ἅπαξ... .. πεφανέρωται, but now, at the close of the [Jew- 


ish] dispensation, he has once for all made his appearance, in order to 
remove the punishment due to sin by the sacrifice of himself. Νῦν does 
not relate particularly to¢ime here, but is a particle of opposition, in con- 
tradistinction to ἐπεὶ, «Συντελείᾳ τῶν αἰώνων, the close of the Mosaic 
economy or period. «ἰὼν singular and αἰῶνες plural, appear to be 
sometimes used in the same sense in the New Testament, like ovgavoc 


HEBREWS IX, 26, 27. 453 


and οὐρανοί, σάββατον and σάββατα, and some other nouns; see on 
1:2. For the meaning given to αἰών see Wahl’s Lex. on the word. 

᾿ϑέτησις signifies putting aovay, removal, abrogation, annulling, 
etc. “.4uaeria I understand here, as meaning the penalty due to sin; 
just as the Hebrew NNW means sin, and the punishment or conse- 
quences of sin; and j}¥ means iniquity, and the punishment, i.e. con- 
sequences, of iniquity. It is true, indeed, that Christ came to save 
men from the power as well as the penalty of sin; but most evidently 
his death is here considered, by our author, as an expiatory sacrifice by 
virtue of which the consequences of sin, i. e. the punishment due to it, 
are removed, and the sinner treated as though he were innocent. 

Διὰ τῆς ϑυσίας αὐτοῦ, comp. 1:3. 2:14. 7:27. 9: 12, 14, 15. 
10: 5—10. 

The whole comparison stands thus. ‘As the expiatory sacrifices 
under the law, which were annually offered, and therefore often re- 
peated, procured remission of the temporal punishment due to offences 
under the Mosaic dispensation; so the sacrifice of Christ, and the 
blood which he presents, once for all, in the eternal or heavenly sanc- 
tuary, is eflectual to procure spiritual pardon for all times and ages, 
past and to come.’ Nothing could exhibit the great superiority of 
Christ’s priesthood over that of the Jewish, in a more striking point of 
light than this. The latter, by its offermgs and atonements, procured 
only a remission of temporal punishment in the present world; the 
former, a remission αἰωνίου κολάσεως (Matt. 25: 46) in the world to 
come. 

(27) Kal καϑ' ooor.... κρίσις, for since it is appointed unio men 
to die once only, and after this [cometh] the judgment. Ka ὅσον is 
sometimes equivalent to “awe, since, as, in this epistle; e. g. 7 720) 
comp. v. 22; and here it is plainly the same as ὡς or χαϑώς. ᾿“1πό- 
aeitat, repositum est, ἐξ is laid up for, i.e. by divine appointment, ἐξ ἐς 
reserved, or ἐξ awaits men, once to die. The translation gives the 
meaning, but not with lteral exactness. “Anak is here, once for all, 
only once; for the object of this comparison is to shew that as men die 
but once, so Christ, who had a nature truly human and was in all things 
made like unto his brethren (2: 17), could die but once (and not often- 
times) in order to atone for sin. 

Mera δὲ τοῦτο κρίσις, i. 6. men, having once died, go after that toa 
state of reward or punishment, to a final state in which no more such 
changes as death makes, can be suffered. The clause in question is 
added to the former part of the verse, in order to shew that dying more 

58 


454 HEBREWS IX, 28. 


than once is impossible, inasmuch as judgment immediately follows, 
with which is connected the immutable state of men. The implication 
contained in this verse, (viz. that a state of trial is not to be expected in 
a future world, like to that which is allowed to men in the present 
world), seems to be plain. 

(28) Οὕτω καὶ ὁ Χριστὸς... ἁμαρτίας, so Christ also, after hav- 
ing once for all offered up himself in order to bear the sins of many. 
The writer had been labouring, in the preceding context, to shew that 
the offering of Christ needed not, like that of the high priest, to be of- 
ten repeated. Vs. 27 and 28 are designed to shew, that a repetition of 
the death of Jesus (who suffered in our nature) would have been in- 
consistent with the nature which he sustained, and contrary to all anal- 
ogy. So the author: ‘Since men die but once, so Christ died or was 
offered up (προσενεχϑείς) but once.’ 

Προσενεχϑείς (from προσφέρω) is a Part. of the 1 Aor. passive, and 
may be rendered offered up himself, or made an offering of himself, in- 
asmuch as the 1 Aor. pass. frequently has a middle or reflexive sense, 
particularly when any verb lacks the 1 Aor. of the middle voice, Butt- 
mann’s Gramm. § 135. N.1. ΤΠροσφέρω is a very general word in respect 
to offerings, and designates the action of the person who brings the sacri- 
fice, or of the priest who presents it. As the sacrifice offered to God 
was first s/ain, and then presented; so the idea of an offering here 
necessarily involves the idea of the death of the victim offered. It is 
this implied idea of the death of the victim, that stands in comparison 
with the ἅπαξ ἀποϑανεῖν of all men; 1. 86. as they die but once, so 
Christ died but once. 

Πολλῶν, many, i.e. all nations without distinction, Jews and Gen- 
tiles, for ages past and ages to come, vs. 15, 26 and Rom. 3: 25, 26. 
See the like representation, respecting the universality of the benefits 
offered through the death of Christ, in Matt. 20: 28. 26:28. Rom. 5: 
15, 19 comp. v. 18. John 6: 51. 3: 16. 1 John 2: 2, ete. 

᾿νενεγκεῖν ἁμαρτίας, to bear the sins, means to bear the punishment, 
i.e. to suffer the penalty, due to sin. See Excursus XIX. 

"Liz δευτέρου .... εἰς σωτηρίαν, shall make his appearance a second 
time without a sin-offering, for the salvation of those who wait for him. 
"Ex δευτέρου has reference to ἅπαξ in the preceding clause. Christ ap- 
peared and died once for sin; but when he appears again, ἐκ δευτέρου, 
it will not be to repeat his sufferings, i.e. to make again an expiatory 
sacrifice, but for the purposes of bestowing rewards on those who trust 
in him and wait for his coming. 


HEBREWS LX. 98, 455 


“Χωρὶς ἁμαρτίας has been variously explained. But it is evident 
that the expression has a direct reference to the preceding clause, i. e. 
either to προσενεχϑείς, or to ἀνενεγκεῖν ἁμαρτίας. In the former 
case, ἁμαρτίας, in our clause, would mean sin offering, like DUN, 
NUM, because προσεένέχϑείς means he made himself an offering. 'The 
meaning would then be, “but when Christ again appears, he will not 
make himself a sin-offering, i.e. his appearance will be χωρὶς ἁμαρτίας. 
So I understand the phrase. But if we construe χωρὶς σμαρτίας, as 
referring to ἀνενεγκεῖν ἁμαρτίας, then the supplement to the phrase 
will be χωρὶς [τοῦ ἀνενεγκεῖν] ἀμαρτίας. The meaning of this is, 
‘Without again suffering the penalty due to sin.’ In either way the 
sense amounts to about the same; for either method of interpretation 
makes the writer say, that Christ would no more suffer on account of 
the sins of men, but that, by dying once, he has perfectly accomplished 
the redemption of those who trust in him. 

Tvig αὐτὸν ἀπεχδεχομένοις means, those who, renouncing the world 
and resisting all the motives to swerve from Christian hope and faith 
which the times presented, patiently wait for the rewards which the 
Saviour will finally bestow upon his followers. There isa tacit admoni- 
tion to the Hebrews in this; for it is as much as to say, ‘Those only 
who do thus persevere, will be rewarded.’ £¢ σωτηρίαν has refer- 
ence to the future salvation or blessedness which Christ will bestow up- 
on his followers, at his second coming. 


456 HEBREWS X. 1. 


The insufficiency of the Levitical sacrifices to procure spiritual pardon for sin, and the sufficien- 
cy of the sacrifice which Christ had offered, was one of the most important and interesting of all 
the points which the writer of our epistle had to discuss. The Hebrews in general placed full 
confidence in the efficacy of the Levitical sacrifices to purify them from sin, at least to remove the 
penalty of it. Every person, who is conscious of sin and knows that it subjects him to the penalty 
of the divine Jaw, must naturally feel a deeper interest in the question, whether and how sin can 
be pardoned, than in any other. It was very natural for Jews, who had been educated in the full 
belief of the efficacy of the sacrifices instituted by Moses, to cling to them as the foundation of 
their dearest and highest hopes, viz. the means of pardon and restoration to divine favour. It was 
an attachment to the Jewish ritual, built upon hopes of such a nature, which rendered the Mosaic 
religion so attractive to the Hebrews, and endangered their adherence to a Christian profession. 
‘There was much, too, in the pomp and solemnity of their rites, which served to interest the feelings 
and detight the fancy of the worshippers. It is on account of the strong attachment which they 
cherished for their system of sacrifices and purifications, that our author is so urgent in shewing 
that real pardon with God could not be procured by any or all of these means. The blood of 
Christ only cleanses from sin, and procures acceptance for sinners with God as their spiritual 
judge. 

Accordingly, in Chap. UX. he declares that the tabernacle, with all its sacred utensils and ser- 
vices, was only an image or symbol (καραβολὴ) cf what is real and spiritual in the heavenly 
world, a cupy merely of the σκηνὴ οὐ χειροχιοίητος, 9: 9—11, or a mere ὑπόδειγμα τῶν ἐν 
οὐρανοῖς, 9:23. The Jewish sacrifices availed for nothing more than external purification, 9: 
10, 13; while the blood of Christ purified the soul or mind (ουνείδησιν.) trom the uncleanness of 
sin, and rendered it capable of offering acceptable service to the living God, 9:14. After uddu- 
cing various considerations to show how extensively the rites of the Jaw, which required the ex- 
hibition and application of blood, prefigured that atoning blood which Jesus offered to make ex- 
piation for sin, and that his death, once for all, was sufficient for this purpose, he proceeds in 
chap. X. more deeply to impress the great subject of atoning sacrifice by Christ upon the minds of 
his readers, knowing that very much depended on the conviction which might be attained in re- 
spect to this point. Could they be persuaded, that Jesus had himself offered the only sacrifice 
which made real expiation for sin; and that this, once offered, was an all-sufficient sacrifice; then 
there could be no rational inducement for them to abandon their spiritual hopes, and return to their 
confidence in the rites of the Levitical law. 

The repetition of this subject, is for the purpose of suggesting some new arguments in order to 
enforce it; as may be seen in vs. S—18. 


CHAP. X. 


(1) Sxeav γὰρ ἔχων... .. πραγμάτων, moreover the law, which pre- 
sented only an imperfect sketch of good things to come, and not a full 
representation of those things. The yao here introduces a sentiment 
which serves to illustrate and confirm the preceding verse. ‘The rea- 
soning stands thus: ‘The death of Christ, once for all, is adequate 
forever to secure the pardon of sin; [this must be so], for the law with 
all its sacrifices could never accomplish this end. xa and εἰκὼν are 
related, as the Latin wnbra and effigies are. The former is an imper- 
fect sketch, a mere outline (as we say), a slight representation or resem- 
blance ; the latter is a picture or image filled out or completed, and 
made in all its minute parts to resemble the original. Not that these 
words are always employed with a sedulous attention to such nice 


HEBREWS X. I, 2. 457 


shades of signification ; but in the case before us they are so, because 
they are evidently contrasted with each other. The meaning of the 
writer is: ‘ The law did not even go so far as to exhibit a full image 
of future blessings, but only a slight adumbration. "ἤχων, having, con- 
taining, possessing, affording, or (ad sensum) exhibiting, presenting, 
being, (which gives the same sense), so as to accord with the nature 
of the image that follows. 

Νόμος here means the sacrificial ritual law of which he had before 
been speaking, the old n 2 (διαϑηκη) which was to be abolished. 
The whole law of Moses, i.e. the moral code which it contains, is not 
the subject of consideration or assertion here. Meldovrmy ἀγαϑῶν, 
the same asin9: 11. Ziv πραγμάτων, i.e. τουτῶν, viz. the future 
blessings just before mentioned. 

Kav ἐνιαυτὸν... .. τελειῶσαι, by the yearly sacrifices themselves 
which are continually offered, can never fully accomplish what is need- 
ed for those who approach [the altar]. By κατ᾽ ἐνεαυτὸν ϑυσίαις, the 
writer means particularly to designate those which were offered on the 
great day of national atonement; which were considered the most 
sacred and efficacious of all, inasmuch as the high priest then entered 
the inner sanctuary and presented himself before the mercy seat. 

Προσφέρουσι, with a Nom. not expressed, is equivalent to the pas- 
sive voice here (as often elsewhere), agreeably to the Hebrew idiom. 

Eig τὸ διηνεχές, without cessation, continually, i.e. they were re- 
peated each successive year. ‘I'he word is peculiar to this epistle, so 
far as the New Testament is concerned, and Schneider has omitted it 
in his lexicon; but Ehan, Appian, Diodorus Siculus and Symmachus, 
employ it. 

Τοὺς προσερχομένους means the worshippers who approach the al- 
tar, or the temple, or the divine presence in the temple. ‘The sense is 
for substance the same, whichever of these be understood. For τέλει- 
wou, see on Heb. 9:9 and 7:11. The sentiment of the verse cor- 
responds very exactly with that in 9: 9, 10. 

(2) “Est οὐκ ἂν ἐπαύσαντο ngoogegouevat, for otherwise, 1. 6. if 
the sacrifices could have perfected those who presented them, would not 
the offerings have ceased? To προσεφερόμεναν most critics subjoin 
εἶναι understood (which would be equivalent to the Inf. προσφέρεσϑαι), 
and then they render the phrase thus: They (i. 6. the sacrifices) had 
ceased to be offered. The sense of the phrase thus explained, is the 
same that I have given to it. But mgoopegousvae [ϑυσίαι) ἐπαύσαντο 
seems to me more facile than the other construction. 


458 HEBREWS X. 2, 3. 


Aad τὸ μηδεμίαν... .. κεκαϑαρμένους, because the worshippers once 
for all made clean, would have no longer been conscious of sins. 
“Ἰατρεύοντας designates those who brought the offerings or sacrifices, 
and on whose account they were presented to God, i. e. the worship- 
pers. “4mak denotes here, asin the preceding chapter, once for all; 
the nature of the argument demanding this sense. For if a worshipper 
at one time obtained pardon, or was made clean only in respect to past 
offences, (and surely expiatory sacrifices were offered only with respect 
to the past), this would not prevent the dread of punishment at a future 
period, when new offences would have been committed. 'To be puri- 
fied once for all then was necessary, in order to quiet the apprehensions 
of such a worshipper. 

ἈΑεκαϑαρμένους, purified, atoned for. As καϑαρίζω means, in He- 
brew Greek, to make expiation for, to purify by expiatory offering, to 
pronounce or declare one to be pure; so κεχαϑαρμένους of course 
means those atoned for, those for whom expiation is made, those declar- 
ed to be pure, or rendered pure, and consequently restored to favour. 

“υνείδησεν means not merely conscience, but consciousness, opinion, 
judgement, sentiment, apprehension. «Συνείδησιν ἁμαρτιῶν is an appre- 
hension of the consequences of sin, or @ consciousness that one has sub- 
jected himself to them, a consciousness of guilt. “Auooteoy may mean 
here (as often before), punishment of sin, consequences of sin, like the 
corresponding Hebrew nwt, 115, ΚΘ; or it may mean sin, guilt, 
transgression. The writer, however, does not mean to say, that the 
pardon of sin takes away from him who obtains it, the consciousness 
that he has once been the subject of moral turpitude. This the blood 
of Christ does not effect ; and in heaven, the consciousness of this will 
forever raise high the notes of gratitude for redeeming mercy. But 
pardon may and does remove the apprehension of suffering the penalty 
due to sin; or if by ἁμαρτιῶν we understand sin, guilt simply, then to 
be made clean (χεκαϑαρμένους) from this so as to have no conscious- 
ness of it, is so to be purified as not to contract the stain of it, 1. e. to be 
made holy. 

(3) (AA ἐν avraic.... ἐνιαυτὸν, nay rather, by these [sacrifices] 
yearly remembrance of sins is made. ° Adda, but rather, nay rather, 
quin, quinimo; or (as I have rendered it in the version) on the contra- 
ry, but. Avraig agrees with ϑυσίαις implied; see inv. 1. On the 
day of annual atonement, the sacrifices that were offered being of an 
expiatory nature, and being designed as propitiatory offerings, they 
were of course adapted to remind the Hebrews of the desert of sin, i. e. 


HEBREWS X. 3—5. 459 


of the punishment or penalty due to it. As they continued to be offer- 
ed yearly, so those who brought them must be reminded, through their 
whole lives, of new desert of punishment. ‘The writer means, however, 
that a yearly remembrance of sin in a spiritual respect, not merely in a 
civil or ecclesiastical one, was made; for in this latter sense, the yearly 
atonement procured pardon. In the other it did not; as he now pro- 
ceeds to assert. 

(4) Advvarov yao... ἁμαρτίας, for it is impossible that the blood 
of bulls and goats should remove the penalty due to sin. Tao confir- 
mantis, 1. e. what follows assigns a reason or ground of the assertion 
which precedes. ‘Apatosiy ἁμαρτίας means to take away sin, in the 
sense of removing the penalty or consequences of sin; for thisis the sub- 
ject of which the writer is now treating. That the author has reference 
to the consequences of sin in a future world, or to the punishment of it 
which God inflicts as the spiritual judge of men, is evident from the 
whole tenor of his discussion. One so profoundly versed as he was in 
all the Jewish ritual law, surely was not ignorant of the fact, that civil 
and ecclesiastical pardon for offences of various kinds was every day 
procured by the blood of bulls and goats, and this too, agreeably to di- 
vine appointment. 

(5) Nothing could be more directly in opposition to Jewish prejudi- 
ces respecting the importance and value of the Levitical sacrifices, than 
the assertion just made. Hence the writer deems it prudent to make 
his appeal to the Scriptures, for confirmation of what he had advanced. 
This he does by quoting a passage from Ps. xu., which he applies to 
the Messiah and to the efficacy of the sin-offering made by him. 

Ato εἰσερχόμενος εἰς τὸν κόσμον, λέγει, wherefore, entering into the 
world, he [Christ] says ; i. e. because the blood of goats and bullocks is 
not efficacious in procuring pardon for sin, Christ, when entering into 
the world, is represented by the Psalmist as saying, etc. ; see Ps. 40: 7, 
seq. 

Θυσίαν καὶ προσφορὰν οὐκ ἐϑέλησας, in sacrifice and oblation thou 
hast no pleasure. Θυσία means a sacrifice of some slain beast, from 
ϑύω, to kill. So the corresponding Hebrew maj from may, mactare. 
Προσφορὰ is any thing offered or presented; and here it means, other 
oblations than those of sacrifices, such as thank-offerings, libations, etc. 


The corresponding Hebrew 7272 , gift, present, comes from the obso- 
et A 


lete root 1272, to present, Arabic 4, the same. Οὐκ ἐϑέλησας, He- 
brew mS) ND, is capable of being translated, thou hast not required, 


400 HEBREWS X. ὅ. 


or thou hast not desired, thou hast no pleasure in or dasa sams The 
latter is, doubtless, the shade of meaning here. The sentiment is not, 
that God had not at all required sacrifices and oblations, for this he had 
done ; but that they were in a comparative sense of little value; they 
were insufficient in themselves to accomplish the higher purposes of his 
spiritual law, and therefore he had no pleasure in them. 

“Σῶμα δὲ κατηρτίσω μοι, but a body hast thou prepared for me. A 
very difficult and much agitated expression. If we recur, in the first 
place, to the Hebrew in Ps. 40 : 7, we find the corresponding words there 
to be, Ἔξ τ. D2IN, mine ears hast thou opened. The verb N42 
(from >) means ‘primarily, to dig, to hollow out, e. g. a well, Gen. 
26:25: a pit, Ps. 7: 16; or pit-fall, Ps. 57: 7; ἃ sepulchre or grave, 
Gen. 50: 5. 2 Chron. 16: 14. The verb 57> has also the meaning of 
purchasing or procuring, e. g. water, Deut. 2:6; particularly of pro- 
curing a supply of food and drink, 2 K. 6:23; also of other things, e. 
g. a wife, Hosea 3:2, where 328 has ἃ Daghesh euphonic in the 5. 
These are all the meanings of this eee which the Hebrew Scriptures 
present. In translating 9 m7 D724", then, we may render it either 
mine ears hast thou opened, nie: is one a small deflection from the 
literal sense, (for to dig out a pit or well, is to open one); or we may 
render it ears hast thou provided for me, in which sense the Seventy 
seem plainly to have understood m74>, when they rendered it by xa- 
τηρτίσω. ‘The former sense seems to be more analogical with the na- 
ture of the subject, and with the Hebrew idiom. 'The Hebrews speak 
of opening the ears or of uncovering them, in order to designate the idea 
of prompt obedience, of attentive listening to the commands of any one. 
E. g. Is. 50: 4, we have 217905 Ἰ1Ν 3b 55, he excited my ear to hear ; 
and in v. 5 is an equivalent expression 738 75 MOD, he opened mine ear. 
which is explained in the corresponding parallelism by "77772 ND 722832, 
and I was not refractory, 1. 6. | was obedient. It is true, that ἘΝῚ mba 
means to uncover or disclose the ear, i. e. to communicate any thing or 
reveal it to another; e.g. 1 Sam. 20: 2, 12, 19. 22:17. But that 
m2 OTN (in Ps. 40: 7) lit. chow hast opened mine ears, may mean 
thou hast made me obedient, or I am entirely obedient to thy service, 
seems to be sufficiently confirmed by Job. 36: 10, 15, and by vs. 8, 9 
of Ps. xu., which follow the expression quoted in Heb. 10: 5, and serve 
as a comment upon it. 

If this view of the meaning be correct, then another interpretation 
put upon the phrase by many critics, is not well founded. They render 


HEBREWS Χ. 5—7. AGI 


it, mine ears hast thou bored through. 'They suppose the expression to 
be figurative, and to be borrowed from the Hebrew usage of boring 
through, with an awl, the ear of a person who became the voluntary 
servant of another; as described in Ex. 21:6. Deut. 15: 17. Mine 
ears hast thou bored through would then mean, ‘I am through life thy 
voluntary servant,’ or ‘I will be perpetually obedient to thee.’ This 
sense, it will be seen, agrees in general with that put upon the phrase 
by the other mode of explanation. But the source of explanation here 
adopted, does not seem to be admissible. In Ex. 21: 6, the verb bore 
through is 27 (not > as in Ps. 40: 7), and the instrument by which 
it is done is named 3772, an awl, a derivate of the verb 3&9. So in 
Deut. 15: 17, the instrument named is the same ΣΝ, and the action 
of boring through is expressed by 13783 "inn, thou shalt put it through 
his ear, (not 3). That 25 and m2 indicate very distinct actions, 
is sufficiently plain ; for to bore through any thing, and to dig or hollow 
out a pit, grave, or well, are surely very different actions, indicated in 
Hebrew by verbs as different as the English dig and bore through. 
Moreover, in Ex. 21: 6 and Deut. 15: 17 the singular 7{& is used, and 
not as here 57278, both cars. 

The original then in Ps. 40: 2, "Ὁ MD OTN, means mine ears hast 
thou opened, i.e. me hast thou made readily or attentively obedient; at 
least, this seems to be the meaning, if we make Is. 50: 4,5 and other 
places cited above, our exegetical guide. See Excursus XX. 

(6) “Ohoxovropara zal... εὐδόκησας, in whole burnt-offerings and 
[sacrifices] for sin thou hast no delight. ᾿Ολοκαυτώματα means, such 
offerings as were entirely consumed upon the altar ; so the corresponding 
Hebrew “33> signifies. Περὶ ἁμαρτίας is an elliptical expression, an- 
swering to the Hebrew original “NOT, and which completed would be, 
ϑυσίαι περὶ ἁμαρτίας, sin-offerings. Οὐκ εὐδόκησας, Heb. πεν Nd, 
requirest not, desirest not, demandest not, hast no pleasure in. 

(7) 70τε einov, therefore I said, or then I said. The first of these 
versions is approved by eminent critics. They suggest, that if τότε 
(Heb. τὸ) be referred to time merely, it seems very difficult to ascertain 
what is the precise meaning; for at what particular ¢ime was it, that 
God did not delight in whole burnt-offerings and sacrifices for sin? 
Gesenius renders 7% by propterea in Ps. 40: 8, Jer. 22:15. It may 
however be said, that the speaker here refers to the time when he is 
disclosing these views respecting sacrifices ; or, with still more proba- 
bility, the time referred to in the preceding context of Ps. 40, which 
relates the wonderful works of God. Supposing either to be the case, 

59 


402 HEBREWS X. 7. 


τότε would mean then, i. e. immediately after this sentiment was de- 
clared, or after the time of deliverance specified in the context. If zoz¢ 
be rendered therefore, the meaning will be, ‘because thou hadst no 
pleasure in sacrifices, therefore I said, etc.’ Strictly speaking, however, 
τότε is not tllative. I prefer the other rendering. 

"JOov ἥκω... ϑέλημα σου, Lo! I come, O God, to do thy wiil, (in 
the volume of the book it is written respecting me). δου ἥκω expresses 
the readiness of him who speaks, to obey the will of God. 

Ἔν κεφαλίδι βιβλίου is a much agitated expression. The Hebrew 
is simply AHOTN DATS, i the roll or volume of the book. But how does 
κεφαλίδι βιβλίου correspond to this? Aegadig denotes the end or extrem- 
ity of any thing, as being the head or summit of it. The Heb. 993, 
βιβλίον, was a manuscript rolled upon a cylinder of light wood, at the 
extremity of which were heads or knobs, for the sake of convenience to 
those who used the manuscript. The knob or head, xeqadic, is here 
taken as a part which is descriptive or emblematic of the whole. Aé- 
φαλὶς βιβλίου means therefore, a βεβλίον or Ξ with a zeqadis, 1. 6. a 
manuscript roll; which was the form of the Jewish sacred books, and is 
still retained in all their synagogues. It coincides, then, in regard to 
signification, very exactly with the Heb. 152 nba, of which it is a 
translation. 

* But what volume of manuscript-roll is here meant? Plainly the one 
which was already extant, when the Psalmist was writing. If the 
Psalmist was David himself, (as the title of the psalm seems to affirm), 
the only parts of the Hebrew Scriptures then extant, and of course the 
only part to which he could refer, must have been the Pentateuch, and 
perhaps the book of Joshua. Beyond any reasonable doubt, then, the 
κεφαλὶς βιβλίου (ABQ P33) was the Pentateuch. 

But what is there written, and how, respecting the personage who 
speaks in the 40th Psalm? Rosenmiuller (on Ps. 40: 7) translates the 
Hebrew "by 21n> (γέγραπται τιερὶ ἐμοῦ) by prescriptum est mihi, and 
appeals to 2 K. 22: 13 for confirmation of this version. He compares 
also Gen. 2: 16. Ezra 1: 2, where ἘΦ is used after 78 and 7/25. verbs 
of commanding or enjoining. Gesenius approves this version, but pro- 
duces no other instances to confirm it which are of the same kind. He 
appeals, indeed, to Est.9: 23, where >& is used after 192; and to Hos. 
8:12. 2K. 17: 37, and Prov. 22: 20, where > is used after the same 
verb, in order to confirm this interpretation. But the three last cases 
plainly denote nothing more, than that the matter referred to was writ- 
ten for the use of another, or addressed to him. Such too is the case 


HEBREWS Χ. 7. 463 


with the other example in Est. 9: 23; as may be clearly seen by com- 
paring Est. 9:20. With deference to the opinion of these very distin- 
guished critics, I must still doubt, therefore, whether >» 29> means 
praescribere alicut. At most, there is only 2 Κα. 22: 18, which is appo- 
site to establish this signification ; and even here the meaning in ques- 
tion is not necessary ; for 12°2Y 22ND" may be rendered with about 
equal significancy, which was written in respect to us or concerning us, 
i.e. for our sake or to regulate our duties. The Seventy, then, who 
translated "by 23m>D by γέγραπται περὶ ἐμοῦ", translated it agreeably to 
the usual idiom of the Hebrew. The apostle, in our text, has evidently 
recognized the correctness of this version. The difference in meaning 
between prescribed to me and written concerning me, is a considerable one 
in this case. The first version would represent the speaker as saying; “1 
come, Ὁ God, to do thy will [i. 6. my duty], as 1 am commanded in the 
Scriptures to do.’ The second; ‘‘I come to offer my body or myself 
in place of the legal sacrifices, for in the Scriptures (i. e. in the law of 
Moses), this is written concerning me.” Now as to a choice of versions 
here, it will not be doubted that the latter version accords with the rea- 
soning and design of the apostle, or rather, that it is important to his 
purpose. The first version would not, indeed, contradict the design of 
the apostle; for he might say, It is prescribed in the Scriptures that the 
Messiah should do the will of God, i.e. make himself an offering for 
sin. Comp. Luke 24: 25—27, 46. Acts 17: 2,3. 1 Pet. 1: 11, 12. 
But I apprehend the meaning of the writer to be, that the book of the 
law which prescribes sacrifices that were merely oxcad or παραβολαί 
of the great atoning sacrifice by Christ, did itself teach, by the use of 
these, that something of a higher and better nature was to be looked for 
than the Levitical rites. In a word, it pointed to the Messiah, i.e. 
some of the contents of the written law had respect to him. So Mi- 
chaelis, Storr, and others. Still, γέγραπται περὶ ἐμοῦ may have re- 
spect to declarations, in the Pentateuch, of a different and more direct 
nature. That there are such, Jesus himself affirms, John 5:46. So 
Paul, Acts 26 : 22, 23. Gal. 3: 16 seq. Construed in either way, the 
amount of the phrase under consideration is this: ‘In the law of Mo- 
ses I am described as coming to do thy will,’ i. 6. to offer my body as a 
sacrifice, comp. v. 10. ’ 

That the Hebrews to whom the apostle addressed himself, would 
recognize such an affirmation and feel the force of it, seems to be 
nearly certain from the fact, that the writer without any hesitation ad- 
dresses it to them, in order to produce conviction in their minds with 


264 | HEBREWS X. 7—9. 


then, that both he and the Christian Hebrews to whom he wrote, be- 
lieved that the Jewish ritual had respect to the sacrifice of the Messiah, 
and that he was virtually revealed in the law of Moses as a suffering 
Saviour, making atonement for the sins of his people. Were this not 
so, then the argument in Heb. 10: 5—10 would be destitute of any real 
foundation, and consequently of any force as a proof of what the writer 
is labouring to establish. 

Ὃ ϑεὸς, Heb. x7ts, O my God. Tf the Messiah be considered as 
uttering this before his incarnation and as Logos, then would it be an 
embarrassing circumstance to explain how, in his simple divine nature, 
he could speak of “my God.” But if considered as a prophetic antici- 
pation of what he would say during his incarnation, (and so it clearly 
seems to me the writer intends it should be considered), then ὁ Moe, 
or ὁ ϑεός μου, accords with the usage of the Saviour in addressing the 
Father, as disclosed in the gospel Matt. 27: 46, al. 

To ϑέλημα σου. What this will is, see in v. 19. 

(8) “Avwiregor léyor ... . εὐδόκησας, first saying, “ Sacrifice, and 
oblation, and whole burnt-offering, and [offering] for sin thou desirest 
not, nor hast pleasure in them.” ° Avoiregor, lit. above, which is equiv- 
alent here to first, or in the first place. 

Aitives κατὰ τὸν νόμον προσφέρονται, which are presented accord- 
ing to the law. "This is a parenthetic explanation, added by the writer in 
order to shew that the same legal sacrifices in which the Hebrews were 
in danger of placing their confidence, were those which must be super- 
seded by the death of Christ. 

(9) Tore εἴρηκεν... τὸ ϑέλεμα cov, he then says, “ Lo I come to 
do thy will.” We might expect εἴπων here, instead of econxer, for the 
regular construction of the sentence would seem to require it. But 
here is a sentence constructed in the Hebrew manner, which not unfre- 
quently begins with a participle in the first clause, and then uses a verb 
in the second, when both stand in the same relation to the sequel of the 
sentence, see Heb. Gramm. §564. It is evident here, that ἀνώτερον 
λέγων x.t.4, and τότε εἴρηκε κι τι, both bear the same relation to 
ἀναιρεῖ κι τι; the sense of which, I may add, is rendered obscure, by 
the period which most editors of the Greek Testament have put be- 
fore it. 

"Avaugel.... στήσῃ, he abolishes the first, viz. the sacrifices, etc., 
that he may establish the second, viz. the doing of the will of God, or the 
offering of himself as a sacrifice for sin, v.10. That is, ‘ Doing the will 


nEBREWS X. 9, 10. 465 


of God, or obedience to him even unto death, or the offering up of his 
body, is represented by the Psalmist as a substitute for legal sacrifices, 
and as an arrangement which would supersede them.’ 

It is quite plain that ἀναιρεῖ x. τ. A, is an inference, drawn from the 
two declarations recited in the context immediately preceding ; for 
σιρῶτον certainly refers to the legal sacrifices, and δεύτερον to the obe- 
dience of the Messiah. But the construction of the sentence (for it 
seems certainly to be but one sentence) is Hebraistic, as noted above, 
and not according to the rules of classical Greek ; and it affords a nota- 
ble example, how far the style of our author is from the easy, rhetorical, 
flowing method, of which so much has been said by late critics, and 
from that ᾿“ιλληνεκότης which even Origen ascribes to him. 

(10) The writer proceeds to explain what is meant in this case by 
doing the will of God, and what is the efficacy of that obedience. “Av 
ᾧ Geljuate.... ἐφάπαξ, by which will expiation is made for us, by 
the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. “Lv ᾧ ϑελήματι 
means by doing which will, i.e. by whose obedience. “//yraouevor 
Eouev, expiati sumus, conciliati sumus, purificati sumus; in a classical 
sense it would mean, we are consecrated, viz. to God; see on ἀγεάζω 
under 2: 1]. 

The latter part of the verse leaves no doubt, that the writer meant 
to refer the obedience in question or the doing of the will of God, to 
*‘ obedience unto death,’”’ to the voluntary sacrifice for sinners which 
the Saviour offered upon the cross; comp. Phil. 2: 8. 

The whole amount of the reasoning in vs. 5—19, is this: ‘ Ritual sac- 
rifices for sin are not accepted by God, as sufficient to remove the penal- 
ty due to the moral turpitude of sin. But the obedience of the Messiah 
unto death, the offering of his body on the cross, is sufficient, and fully 
supersedes the other sacrifices.’ 

If all this be true, it follows of course that what the apostle had af- 
firmed in v.38 is true, viz. that it is impossible for the blood of slain 
beasts to remove the penal consequences of sin, when considered in the 
light of a spiritual offence and as having respect to the tribunal of God. 

᾿δᾳάπαξ, once for all. The idea conveyed by this is carefully re- 
peated again here, because it concerns a point in respect to which the 
Hebrews would be very prone to raise objections. “‘ You affirm,” they 
would naturally say, “ that there is a resemblance between the sacrifice 
of Christ and the annual expiatory sacrifices by the high priest. But 
there is evidently a great dissimilitude ; for the expiation made by the 
high priest was repeated every year; while Christ suffered only once.” 


400 HEBREWS X. 10—12. 


The ictal meets this difficulty ἐμ ποθ ing, from various considera- 
tions, that being once slain as an expiatory offering was altogether suffi- 
cient to satisfy the demands of the case. Compare Heb. 9: 9—14, 
25—28. 10: 1—3,10—14. Indeed Christ from the nature of the case 
could die but once, 9 : 27, 28. 

(11) Koi πᾶς μὲν ἱερεὺς... ϑυσίας, now every priest stands per- 
forming daily service, and oftentimes presenting the same sacrifices. 
The writer now pursues the confirmation of the thought introduced by 
the ἐφάπαξ in the preceding verse. Aci is used here, as often else- 
where, in order to designate a transition to an additional view of the 
subject which the writer is discussing. 71]ὰς ἱερεύς, every or any Le- 
vitical priest. “ornxe, stands, denoting the attitude of those who are 
in waiting or attendance upon another and keep the position of stand- 
ing both as a token of respect and as a state prepared for ready service. 
It is only the Perf., Pluperf., Aor. 2 act., and Aor. 1 pass. of the verb 
ἵστημι, that have the intransitive meaning to stand. The other tenses 
are transitive, and mean ¢o set, place, station, etc. See Buttmann § 107, 
I]. 1. and Wahl’s Lex. on the word ; and compare (for a sense of the 
word like that above) Rev. 7:9, 11. 8:2. 

Tas avrag....Ovoleg. The same daily sacrifices were repeated 
without intermission ; see Num. 28 : 2—6. 

Aitiveg οὐδέποτε... ἁμαστίας, which can never remove the penalty 
due to sin; comp. vs. 1—8. That ἁμαρτίας here means penalty due 
to sin, is plain; and that it may be properly so construed, no one will 
deny who understands the full meaning of j52, ὨΝΏΤΙ, ond we. 

(12) Οὗτος δὲ μίαν... ϑεοῦ, but this [priest], or he, having offer- 
ed asacrifice for sin of perpetual efficacy, sat down at the right hand of 
God. Inv. 11, we have πᾶς ἱερεύς, 1. 6. every priest of the common 
order, every Levitical priest; the antithesis is ovrog, which refers to 
Christ, and which, (if the ellipsis be supplied according to the gram- 
matical construction of sentences), must mean οὗτος ἱερεύς, The best 
copies read αὐτὸς, which gives essentially the same sense, and honoris 
causa (for so was αὐτὸς employed by the Greeks) is to be preferred. 

Hig to διηνεκξς may be joined with @vo/av, (so Dindorf, Valcknaer, 
Knapp, Boehme, and others) ; or with éxadvour, (so Carpzoff, Kuinoel, 
and most commentators). On the whole I now prefer the latter method. 
The writer apparently designs an antithesis between ἕστηκε καϑ' ἡμέ- 
οαν λειτουργῶν οὖν. 11, and εἰς τὸ διηνεχές here; and so between 
τὰς αὐτὰς πολλάκις προσφέρων ϑυσίας inv. 11. ἀπά wav... προῦ- 
ἐνέγκας here. 


HEBREWS X. 12—I16. 467 


opposed to ἕστηκε in the preceding verse. The latter denotes the atti- 
tude of a servant; the former that of a master or lord. 

(13) To λοιπὸν ἐκδεχόμενος... .. ποδῶν αὐτοῦ, thenceforth waiting 
until his enemies be made his footstool. To λοιπὸν means for the rest, 
viz. of the time; therefore the idea conveyed by Aovnor here is, after- 
wards, thenceforth. °“Exdezouevos designates the attitude of waiting or 
expecting. The idea is, that the Messiah is seated on his throne, quiet- 
ly expecting that his enemies will in due time be all subdued. 

Oi ἐχϑοοὶ designates all those who are opposed to the character, 
doctrines, or reign of Christ. To make them his footstool means, thor- 
oughly to subjugate and humble them; comp. 2: 8. 1 Cor. 15: 27, 28. 
. See the origin of this phrase in the custom described in Josh. 10: 24. 

(14) Ata yoo προσφορᾷ... .. τοὺς ayragouevous, for by one offer- 
ing he has forever perfected those for whom cxpiation is made. Tao 
here introduces a confirmation of what is said in v.12. Mee προσφο- 
0@, viz. the offering of his own body, v. 10. Teredeiwxe, see on 9:9 
and 10: 1. The meaning is: ‘He has forever removed the penalty 
due to sin, and procured for those who were exposed to it, that peace of 
conscience which the law could never give ; comp. vs. 1—4. ᾿“2γεαζο- 
μένους, see on 2: 11. 9: 13. 10: 10. 

(15) “Παρτυρεῖ δὲ jutv.... ἅγιον, moreover the Holy Spirit also 
bears testimony to us. Ag, moreover, a continuative of the discourse, 
here marking the transition to a new paragraph, in which appeal is 
made by way of confirming what the writer had said. The Holy Spir- 
ἐξ means, the Holy Spirit who speaks by the Scriptures; as the sequel 
shews, which is a quotation from the Scriptures. “/Zuity, to us, means, 
that the sentiment which the writer had been inculcating, the truths 
which he had declared, and confirmed by what the Holy Spirit says to 
us, i. 6. to us and to all, in the Scriptures of truth. 

Mera γὰρ τὸ προειρηχέναι, for after he had said, viz. had said first 
in order or in respect to time. ; 

(16) Avty ἡ διαϑήκη x. τ. Δ. See on chap. 8:10, where is the 
same quotation. It is worthy of note, however, that even here, where 
the same passage is appealed to, the words are not all the same. In 
8: 10, we have τῷ οἴκῳ “σραήλ; in 10: 16, αὐτούς: in the former, 
διδοὺς νόμους mov εἰς τὴν διάνοιαν αὐτῶν; in the latter, δὲ- 
δοὺς νόμους μου ἐπὶ καρδίας αὐτῶν: inthe former, ἐπὶ κα ρ- 
δίας αὐτῶν ἐπιγράψω αὐτούς ; inthelatter, ἐπὶ τῶν δεανοιῶν 
αὐτῶν ἐπιγράψω αὐτούς. Non refert verbum, sed res ipsa. The 


468 HEBREWS X. 16—18. 


meaning of both is the same. De minimis non curat lex, say civilians 
in construing human laws; and the maxim applies as well to the man- 
ner of diction in the Scriptures as in any other book. 

With Beza, Lud. de Dieu, Storr, Boehme, Knapp, Kuinoel, and oth- 
ers, [now regard μετὰ τὸ προειρηκέναι x. τ. 1, down to éxelvag, as pro- 
tasis; and λέγει Κύριος x. τ. 4, as apodosis. This gives a better and 
more connected sense than to make the apodosis begin with v. 17, as I 
did in the first edition of this work. 

(17) Kai τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν κ. τ. λ; see on 8:12. Kai here mere- 
ly connects the clause quoted in the preceding verse from 8: 10, to the 
clause in v. 17 which is quoted from 8:12. We might say, perhaps 
with almost equal probability, that καί stands before λέγει implied, i. e. 
he also saith. Comp. Heb. 1: 10, καί for καὶ λέγει. 

(18) The writer now sums up the reason why, under the new cove- 
nant or gospel dispensation, absolute and final pardon is obtained. 
“Ὅπου δὲ ἄφεσις .... ἁμαρτίας, now where there is remission of these, 
there is no more offering for sin. 

” Ageous here means sptritual pardon or remission, on the part of 
God as judge and ruler of the world. Tovrwy, i.e. τούτων ἁμαρτιῶν 
καὶ ἀνομεῶν mentioned in the preceding verse. Ovxétt, i.e. offering 
is no more needed, is no more presented. 

This circumstance makes a great difference between the new cove- 
nant and the old one. Under the latter, sacrifices must be perpetually 
repeated ; and after all, only civil and ecclesiastical pardon was to be 
obtained by them. Under the former, one sacrifice is sufficient, and 
avails to procure, for all nations and all ages, spiritual pardon or remis- 
sion of the penalty threatened to be inflicted in a future world. Well 
might the apostle call this a new covenant. 


HEBREWS X. 19, 20. 469 


The writer having gone through a comparison of the new dispensation with the old, and having 
shewn, that whether Christ be compared with angels who were the mediators of the Mosaic law, 
or with Moses himself, or with the high priest of the Hebrews, he holds a rank far above them; 
having also shéwn, that whether the temple in which he ministers be compared with that at Jeru- 
salem, or the sacrifice which he offers be compared with those sacrifices presented by the Jewish 
priests, either as to its exalted nature, its spiritual efficacy in respect to procuring pardon for sin 
or the duration and extent of its effects, the Mosaic institutions are nothing more than the shad- 
ow, of which the Christian ones are the substancé ; he now proceeds to the hortatory and admoni- 
tory part of his epistle. In this various subjects are presented, which the circumstances of those 
whom he was addressing rendered it expedient to consider. All that was peculiarly attractive to 
the Jew in the Mosaic ritual, all that served to allure him away from his adherence to Christianity 
and expose him particularly to the danger of apostasy, tbe apostle has brought into view in the 
preceding part of our epistle, with a design to shew, that however attractive or important these 
things might in themselves be, there was something still more so in the Christian religion, some- 
thing of which the Jewish religion offered only a shadow or adumbration. Nothing could be more 
apposite, then, to the case in hand, than the argument of the apostle in the preceding part of this 


epistle. 
The practical application which follows, is designed to excite those whom the writer addresses 


to constancy and perseverance in their Christian profession, to dehort them from apostasy, and 
to warn them against its tremendous consequences. With his warnings, however, the apostle in- 
termingles a great deal of encouragement and promise, in order to excite in them an earnest do- 
siro to obtain the rewards which would be bestowed on all who should remain faithful to the 


end of their course. 
He begins the hortatory part, by an appeal to the great encowragement which the present privi- 


leges of the Hebrew Christians afforded them, to persevere in their Christian profession. 


(19) "£yovtes οὖν... yoo, having then, brethren, free access 
to the sanctuary by the blood of Jesus. Ovv, then, sometimes a parti- 
cle of transition and resumption of a subject that has been suspended ; 
and so here. ‘lhe writer now resumes the admonitions which it was his 
highest purpose to urge. J/u@@nola, in its first acceptation, means 
boldness of speech, or the liberty of speaking without restraint. But 
the word is also used to designate freedom from restraint generally con- 
sidered; which is plainly the meaning here. Παρῥησίαν εἰς τὴν 
εἴσοδον, lit. freedom in respect to entrance, i.e. free access, unrestrain- 
ed liberty of approach. “/yiwy, ie. ἀληϑενῶν, the heavenly sanc- 
tuary, or the presence of God, comp. 9: 24. “Lv τὸ αἵματι ]ησοῦ de- 
notes, the means by which this access is procured, agreeably to what 


has been shown in chap. vii—x ; comp. particularly 9 : 22—26. 


(20) “Hy ἐνεκαίνισεν... . ζῶσαν, in a new and living way which he 
has consecrated. “Odov may be taken as the Acc. of manner, and con- 
strued with κατὰ understood ; or it may be considered as a repetition 
of εἴσοδον and in apposition with it; which latter I prefer. I/googqa- 
τον means recent, and has reference to the way then lately opened by 
the new covenant or gospel dispensation. ‘The way is called new, how- 
ever, not merely because of this, but also because those who draw nigh 

60 


470 HEBREWS X. 20. 


to God in it, have liberty of access in their own persons to the mercy 
seat, and there obtain pardon by means of a sacrifice altogether dif- 
ferent from that which was offered for worshippers by the Jewish priests. 

Ζῶσαν, i.q. ξζωοποιοῦσαν, i.e. εἰς ζωὴν ἀγουσαν, leading to life, 
conferring life or happiness. So Sam is often used in the New Testa- 
ment. But it may mean here, perennial, perpetual, (a frequent sense 
of ew in the Hebrew Greek); and this would be altogether congruous 
with the preceding context, which insists on the perpetuity of the sacri- 
fice of Christ. But on the whole I prefer the former sense. So Theo- 
phylact ; who assigns the following reason for the epithet ᾧ ὦ σαν, viz. 
ὅτε ἡ πρώτη ὁδὸς ϑανατηφόρος ἦν, 1. 6. because that any one who en- 
tered the inner vail of the temple, was punished with death.’ But here, 
viz. under the gospel, it is the way to life. 

*£vezulvioe, consecrated, dedicated. 'To consecrate a way, is to open 
it for access, to dedicate it to use. So Jesus opened the way of access 
for sinners to the eternal sanctuary, in which, if they go, they may ob- 
tain free access to God, and pardon for all their offences. 

Ae. τοῦ καταπετάσματος... .. σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ, through the vail, that 
is, his flesh. 1 translate these words literally, because 1 am not well 
satisfied that I understand their meaning. The opinions of all the 
commentators it would be tedious, if not useless, to recite. The prin- 
cipal interpretation in which the most distinguished of them unite, is, 
that as the vail of the temple must be removed in order to enter the in- 
ner sanctuary, so the body of Jesus must be removed (by death), that 
we might have liberty of access to the sanctuary above. So Kuinoel 
and Bloomfield. But this is an exegesis which, while the facts to which 
it alludes are true, still presents a comparison incongruous at first sight ; 
and seemingly it requires one to do violence to his imagination, in or- 
der to recognize it with any degree of satisfaction. 

I could more easily acquiesce in the idea, that there is a kind of 
paronomasia here in respect to the word διά. The form of it may be 
thus expressed. ‘ As the most holy place in the earthly temple, could 
be approached only through (δια) the vail, i.e. through the aperture 
which the vail covered ; so the heavenly sanctuary is approached only 
through (Ove implied) the flesh or body of Jesus.’ In this last ease, διὰ 
(if employed as here supposed) would mean, by means of, because of, 
on account of, viz. by means of the body of Jesus sacrificed for sin, see 
v. 10. The paronomasia would consist in using διά, in the first case, 
in the sense of through with respect to place ; and in the last case, in 
the sense of through with the signification, by means of. Instances 


HEBREWS X. 90. 47] 


could easily be accumulated, where the same word is employed in dif- 
ferent senses in the same sentence. E.g. ‘Let the dead (νεκρούς) 
bury their dead (νεκρούς), Luke 9: 60; where vexoovs in the first 
case means morally dead, in the second, physically dead. So 2 Cor. 
5: 21, ‘He hath made him to be a sin offering (ἁμαρτίαν), who knew 
no sin (ἁμαρτίαν). In like manner the apostle might say: ‘ As the 
Jews had access to the inner sanctuary of the temple διά καταπετάσ- 
ματος, through the vail, so Christians have access to the heavenly sanc- 
tuary διὰ σαρχὸς, i.e. διὰ προσφορᾶς σαρκὸς ᾿Ϊησοῦ, comp. v. 10. 
And although I would not admit paronomasia, except in cases where 
there are urgent reasons for it, it seems to be more tolerable here, than 
the other method of interpretation suggested above, and is certainly 
in harmony with the principles of the usus loquendi of the sacred 
writers. 

But after all, the mind still seems to feel a want of definite satisfac- 
tion, in regard to either of the methods of interpretation above proposed. 
May I be allowed, in a difficulty of such a nature, to propose, at least 
for consideration, a third method of interpreting the expression τῆς σαρ- 
πος αὐτοῦ 1 

In John 1: 14, it is said, ‘The Word became flesh, σάρξ ; to which 
the writer adds, zai ἐσχήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν. Ini Tim. 3:16, we have 
ϑεὺς ἐφανερώϑη ἐν σαρκί, supposing the reading to be correct, (and 
the evidence seems to me quite in its favour, and so Dr. Knapp has 
judged). In Rom. 1: 4, a broad distinction is made between the na- 
ture of Christ xara σαρκα and his nature χατὰ πνεῦμα ἀγεωσύνης ; 
and in Rom. 9: 5, Christ is said to have descended from the Jewish 
fathers xara σαρκά, while he is at the same time, ὁ ἐπὶ πάντων ϑεός. 
In Phil. 2: 6, Christ, who was ἐν μορφὴ ϑεοῦ, 
μορφὴν δούλου λαβών. In all these, and in many more passages 
which might easily be added, the human nature or body of Christ, 
seems to be regarded as a kind of temporary tabernacle, or vail of the 
divine nature which dwelt in him. May not our author, in the verse 
under consideration, have had such an idea in his mind, when he wrote 
τοῦ “ATAMETHOMATOS, τοῦτ᾽ ἔστι, τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ ‘The idea would 
seem to be this; ‘ As the vail of the temple concealed the glory of Je- 
hovah, in the holy of holies, from the view of men, so Christ’s flesh or 
body screened or concealed the higher nature from our view, (which 
dwelt within this vail, as God did of old within the vail of the temple).’ 
If, on this account, the apostle calls Christ’s flesh @ vail, then we may 
easily make out the sense of the verse before us. It would stand thus: 


, ' 
ἐχένωσεν ἕαυτον, 


472 HEBREWS X. 20—22. 


behind the vail of Jesus’ body in his spiritual temple, i.e. he is to be 
approached through the medium of this, or by means of this.’ So the 
context which precedes; ‘free access to the sanctuary is ἐν αἵματι 
‘Inoov. That the writer had in his mind a design to compare the vai 
of the Jewish temple, as the medium between the worshipper and the 
visible presence of Jehovah, to the body of Christ (σὰρξ αὐτοῦ) as the 
medium of access to God, or what must interpose between God and 
him ; and this specially in reference to Christ’s suffermgs and death; 
seems to be, on the whole, quite clear. But which of the ways now 
proposed will best present this general idea, or whether any of them 
are sufficiently grounded to be fully admitted, is a question on which 
the reader must be left to judge for himself. My own apprehension on 
the whole is, that the occasion of calling Christ’s flesh a vail, or of 
comparing it to a vail, lies in the views stated under the last of the 
above explanations ; while at the same time, the actual comparison of 
the vail of the temple and of Christ’s body, is confined to the single 
point that each is a medium of access to God. If you say, ‘ The com- 
parison is, in most respects, without grounds of anaiogy, and the two 
things widely dissimilar ;’ my answer is, that there is as much congrul- 
ty in it, as there is in the comparison between the physical death of 
Christ, in Rom. v1., and the moral death of believers to sin, to which 
the former is there compared. Indeed, between all objects of compari- 
son, when God or Christ is one of these objects, there must of course be 
a dissimilarity that is exceedingly great in some respects, although there 
may be an analogy in some others. 

In whatever light our passage is viewed, it will be conceded, that its 
language is far from being in that casy and flowing style which has been 
so often asserted of our epistle. 

(21) Kai ἱερέα... ϑεοῦ, τ. 6. καὶ ἔχοντες ἱερέα x. τ. A, the Part. be- 
ing implied, which was expressed at the beginning of ν. 19; comp. 4: 
14. 5:10. 7: 17, 20, 26. 8:1. + “soca μέγαν is the same as 1119 
bina, high-priest,a Hebraism. “Lui τὸν οἶκον τοῦ ϑεοῦ, comp. 3: 1 
—6. It designates here the spiritual house of God, 1. e. Christians. 

(22) Τροσερχώμεϑα, let us draw nigh, i.e. τῷ ϑεῷ, which is im- 
plied. The manner of the expression is borrowed from approach to the 
most holy place in the temple, where God peculiarly dwelt. 

Mere ἀληϑιενῆς .... πίστεως, with a true heart, in full confidence. 
“Ain Ow7g means sincere, faithful, true, and designates sincerity of 
Christian profession, faithful attachment to Christianity, in opposition 


HEBREWS X. 22, 23. ATS 


to an insincere or an apostatizing state of mind. J/Ayjgogoo/a means 
a full measure. IDnoopooia πίστεως means, unwavering, undoubting 
faith, a fulness of faith which leaves no room for apostasy or skepti- 
cism. How exactly this exhortation was adapted to the state of the 
Hebrews, it is easy to perceive. 

᾿Μρῥαντεσμένοι.. ... πονηρᾶς, being purified as to our hearts from a 

consciousness of evil, lit. being sprinkled as to our hearts, etc. The 
expression is borrowed from the rites of the law, agreeably to which 
very many ceremonial purifications, as we have seen, were made by the 
sprinkling of blood either upon persons or utensils. This was external. 
But when the writer says here, ἐρῥαντισμένοι tag καρδίας, he desig- 
nates spiritual, internal purification, and shews that he is not speaking 
of any external rites. This internal purification is effected by the blood 
of Jesus, with which Christians are figuratively said to be sprinkled. 
But the construction, ég6artiomévoe . ... a0... . shews that the par- 
ticiple ἐρῥαντισμένοι is to be taken in a secondary or metaphorical 
sense, i.e. purified from, cleansed from. 

Συνειδήσεως πονηρᾶς, a consciousness of evil, or a conscience op- 
pressed with evil or sin. Perhaps both senses are included ; for both are 
characteristic of Christian sincerity and full faith, which is incompatible 
with a consciousness of evil designs, and which frees men from an op- 
pressive sense of past evil, by inspiring them with the hope of pardon. 

(23) Koi dshouuevoe.... καϑαρῷ, and having our bodies washed 
with pure water ; another expression borrowed from the frequent wash- 
ings prescribed by the Levitical law for the sake of external purifica- 
tion; see Ex. 29: 4. 40: 31, 82. Lev. 16: 4. also chap. vi. χιν. xv. et 
alibi. It seems to me, that here is a plain allusion to the use of water 
in the initiatory rite of Christian baptism. ‘This is altogether consonant 
with the method of our author, who is every where comparing Christian 
institutions with Jewish ones. So in the case before us he says: ‘The 
Jews were sprinkled with blood in order that they might be purified so 
as to have access to God ; Christians are internally sprinkled, 1. 6. puri- 
fied by the blood of Jesus. The Jews were washed with water, in order 
to be ceremonially purified so as to come before God; Christians have 
been washed by the purifying water of baptism.’ So Ananias exhorts 
Saul to be baptized and wash away his sins, Acts 22: 16. In this latter 
case, and in that before us, the phrase is borrowed from the legal rite of 
washing for purification. In Heb, 10: 23, no particular stress is to be 
Jaid on the mere external rite of washing the bady ; for the connection 
shews, that the whole is designed to point out the spiritual qualifications 


474 HEBREWS X. 23—25. 


of sincere Christians for access to God. But the manner of expression 
turns wholly apon a comparison with the Jewish rites. 

On the whole, I prefer, with Kuinoel, Bloomfield, Storr, Cramer, 
Michaelis, and others, to join AsAovuevoe in construction to the prece- 
ding EQOAYTLOMEVOL z.t.4, as the whole runs smoother, and the con- 
struction is more facile. 

Κατέχωμεν τὴν omohoylay .... ἐπαγγειλάμενος, let us hold fast the 
hope which we profess, for faithful is he who has promised. ᾿Ομολογίαν 
means profession or confession of the Christian religion, which is here 
called ἐλπίδος, in reference to the hopes which it occasions or inspires. 
The idea is: ‘ Let us firmly retain our profession of that religion, which 
fills us with hope respecting future rewards and happiness.’ 

Πιστὸς γὰρ ὁ ἐπαγγειλάμενος, i.e. let us firmly adhere to our reli- 
gion, because God, the author of those promises which it holds forth, 
will certainly perform them; he is faithful, i.e. true to his word, and 
altogether worthy of confidence in respect to his promises. 

(24) Kai κατανοώῶμεν .... ἔργων, and let us bear one another in 
mind, so as to excite to love and guod works. Katavowuev, consider 
attentively, have a regard to, think upon or bear in mind. 'The writer 
means, that it is the duty of the Hebrews to cherish a mutual spirit of 
interest or concern for each other; and this, in such a way as should be 
the means of mutually exciting each other to more distinguished beney- 
olence and good works. The perils to which they were exposed, ren- 
dered such advice very timely. I prefer the sense as thus given, to that 
adopted by Kuinoel and others, viz. κατανούμεν, let us watch over oth- 
ers, i.e. for the sake of admonition, reproof, praise, etc. 

(25) My ἐγκαταλείποντες... παρακαλοῦντες, not forsaking the 
assembling of ourselves together (us the custom of some is), but admon- 
ishing [one another]. ἐγκαταλείποντες is in the same construction 
with κατανοῶμεν in v. 24, and consequently agrees with ἡμεῖς under- 
stood. “Lavovrvaywyny has been rendered society of Christians, i. e. 
the church, and the precept applied to apostasy. And although some 
critics of good name have patronized this interpretation, I cannot think 
it to be a probable one. How could the apostle refer to apostasy by 
χαϑῶως ἔϑος τισίν To absence from public worship, or from Christian 
assemblies, this would very naturally apply.—‘avray relates to the 
first person plural here ; as it does elsewhere, 6. g. Rom. 8: 23. 1 Cor. 
11:31. 2 Cor. 1:9. 10: 12,14. Inlike manner, παρακαλοῦντες re- 
quires ἀλλήλους to be mentally supplied after it; which is expressed 
after χκατανοῶμεν. That παρακαλέω means to admonish, any common 


HEBREWS Χ, 25. 475 


lexicon will shew. ‘The whole sentence is in the usual manner of the 
writer, who very frequently employs κοίνωσες in warnings and admoni- 
tions. 

Kai τοσούτῳ μᾶλλον... ἡμέραν, and this [do] so much the more, 
as ye see the day approaching. ‘That is, be more earnest and constant 
in mutual admonition and efforts to excite each other to Christian dili- 
gence and perseverance, in proportion as the time draws near, when the 
judgments denounced against the Jewish nation by the Saviour will be 
executed. ᾿μέραν, day, is doubtless an elliptical expression for ἡμέ: 
oav κυρίου, “7777 017; a very common expression of the Hebrew wri- 
ters for a time of distress, of chastisement, a time in which God executes 
the threats which have been uttered by his prophets; comp. Ps. 87: 13. 
1 Sam. 26:10. Ezek.21:25. 13:5. Job 18:20. 24: 1. Amos 5: 18. 
Jer. 30: 7. Joel 1: 15. Is.2: 12. Rev. 16: 14, et alibi. Now as Christ 
had foretold the destruction of the Jewish temple and nation, (which 
could not be unknown to the Hebrew Christians), what could be more 
natural than for the apostle to say: ‘ Brethren, do every thing in your 
power to guard against apostasy. And this the more, because a return 
to Judaism would now be very ill-timed ; the season is near, when the 
Jewish temple and state are to be destroyed.’ All this is surely very 
apposite to the case in hand. 

But if we should suppose, (with not a few of the recent commenta- 
tors), that the writer here alludes to the day when Christ should reappear 
and commence a visible reign on earth, (which they suppose the apostles 
to have believed in common with many individual Christians of early 
times), then I could not perceive so much force in the apostle’s argu- 
ment. It would run thus: ‘Be very strenuous in using all means to 
guard against defection from Christianity to Judaism; and this so much 
the more, because in a little time Christ will commence his visible reign 
on earth. I will not deny that the hope of reward for perseverance in 
Christian virtue, to be bestowed under this new order of things, might 
be used as an argument to dissuade from apostasy ; but plainly, the ar- 
gument as stated above is more cogent, and more to the writer’s pur- 
pose. How any one can be satisfied, after he has read and well consid- 
ered Paul’s second epistle to the Thessalonians, that this apostle believed 
in the immediate and visible advent of Christ, is more than I am able 
to see. 

For these reasons I hesitate not to apply the phrase ἡμέραν éyyi- 
ζουσαν, to the time in which the Jewish state and temple were to be 
brought to an end; or at least to the time when the individuals address- 


or 


476 HEBREWS X. 2527 


ed were to render an account to their divine Lord and master, for the 
manner in which they had improved the privileges and blessings of the 
gospel. ᾿ 

(26) “Exovolmg γὰρ... ϑυσία, morcover, should we voluntarily 
make defection from our religion, after receiving the knowledge of the 
truth, no more sacrifice for sin remaineth. “Exovoiwe, I apprehend, is’ 
not to be construed here with metaphysical exactness, but has refer- 
ence to the common and acknowledged distinction in the Jewish law 
between the sins of oversight or inadvertence (7338) , and those of pre- 
sumption. For the first class, see Lev. 4:2, 13, 22,27. Num. 15: 
27—29; for the second, Num. 15: 30, 31, inex the presumptuous of- 
fender is described by the expression, 4729 323 “ys? TWN, who acts 
with a high hand. ‘That this is the kind ‘of offence to which the apos- 
tle alludes, is evident; for he distinguishes it expressly from the sin of . 
oversight or inadvertence (7430) by saying, that it is committed after 
being enlightened by the gospel. “Lxovo’w¢ means then, deliberately, 
with forethought, with settled intention or design, and not by merely 
sudden and violent impulse or by oversight. 

That ἁμαρτανόντων, in this case, refers to the sin of apostasy, is 
quite plain from the context and the nature of the case, as well as from 
the object which the writer has in view; comp. 12: 1,4. 3:13; also 
παραπεσύντας in 6:6; ἀποστῆναι in 3:12; and ἁμαρτάνειν in Ex. 
23: 33. Hos. 18:2 of the Sept. ᾿“ληϑείας, true doctrine, i. 6. the 
gospel, Christian instruction. 

Οὐκ ἔτι... .. Ovola, i.e. if you make defection from Christianity, 
and renounce your hope and trust in the atoning sacrifice of Christ, no 
other is provided or can be provided for you. No other makes real 
atonement for sin; this being renounced, therefore, your case is despe- 
rate. The sacrifice under the new covenant is never like the Jewish 
offerings, to be repeated. Apostasy from your present religion, then, is 
final perdition. 

(27) Φοβερὰ δέ tug... . ὑπεναντίους, but a certain fearful expec- 
tation of punishment, yea, of burning indignation fawaits us], which 
will consume the adversaries. Koiovews often means condemnation, and 
sometimes the consequences of it, i.e. punishment, as here; comp. 
James 2: 13. 2 Pet. 2:4. Ζῆλος πυρὸς is equivalent to the Hebrew 
maip UN, Zeph. 1: 18, which means vehement displeasure, fierce flames, 
i. 6. severe punishment. Both ἐχδοχή and ζῆλος are Nominatives to 
ἀπολείπεται understood. βσϑέξεν, consume, devour, destroy, like the 
Hebrew >2N , Deut. 32:22. So Homer, In. xxmr. 182, πάντας πῦρ 


HEBREWS X. 26—29. ATT 


ἐσθίει. ᾿Ὑπεναντίους designates all who oppose themselves to the char- 
acter, claims, and kingdom of Christ. 

(28) ᾿“'ϑητήσας tig... .. ἀποϑνήσκει, whosoever dishonoured the 
law of Moses, suffered death without mercy, in case there were two or 
three witnesses. The meaning is not, that- every transgression of the 
Mosaic law was punishable with death, but that in all the cases which 
were of a capital nature, death without reprieve or pardon was inflicted 
where sufficient testimony could be had; see Num. 15:30, 91. Pos- 
sibly, however, the writer means here to describe only those who apos- 
tatized from the law of Moses; e. g. such as are described in Deut. 13: 
6 (comp. vs. S—10). 18: 20. 

"Eni δυσὶν ἢ τρισὶ μάρτυσιν, see Deut. 17:6. 19:15. The He- 
brew "8 >y is rendered ἐπί by the Seventy ; and well, for ἐπί denotes 
in case that, on the condition that, any thing is done or happens. , The 
meaning plainly is: ‘ Provided two or three witnesses testify to a crime 
worthy of death.’ 

(29) πόσῳ, dozeire .... καταπατήσας, of how much sorer punish- 
ment, think ye, shall he be counted worthy, who hath trodden under ἡ 
foot the Son of God. Aoxzsite implies an appeal, on the part of the 
writer, to the conscience and judgment of his hearers, who, it is taken 
for granted, will decide according to his own views in respect to the 
point in question. “ξεωϑήσεται is applied either to desert of reward 
or of punishment; just as we say in English, ‘The man is worthy of 
reward,’ or ‘ worthy of death.’ 

Καταπατήσας signifies to treat with contempt, to spurn at, to treat 
with contumely. Apostasy from the Christian religion implies this; 
and the peculiar criminality of it is here argued, from the superior 
claims which Christ has, on every account, to regard and fidelity. 

Kai τὸ aipa.... ἡγιάσϑη, and has regarded the blood of the cove- 
nant by which expiation has been made as unclean. Some translate 
thus: blood of the covenant by which he hath been consecrated, i. 6. to 
God or Christ. The explanation is then made, by regarding the mode 
of expression as taken from the Jewish rites. When the people of Isra- 
el renewed their covenant with God, Moses sprinkled them with blood, 
Heb. 9: 19, 20. Ex. 24:8. This is called the blood of the covenant. So 
under the new covenant, when Christians are consecrated to the service 
of Christ, and make an open profession of his religion, (as the people of 
Israel did of theirs), they are figuratively said to be sprinkled or clean~ 
sed with the blood of Jesus; comp. Heb. 9: 14. 10: 22. 13: 20. Matt. 
26:27. 1 Cor. 11:25. 1 John 1:7. 1 Pet. 1:19. Rev. 1:5. And 

61 


478 HEBREWS X. 29, 30. 


ee = Lee 


as they enter into covenant with Christ at such a time, pledging them- 
selves to obedience and fidelity, so the blood with which they are said 
to be sprinkled, is called the blood of the covenant. The sense of the 
expression, thus taken, is plainly spiritual, while the form of it is bor- 
rowed from the Jewish ritual. 

But although this is an interpretation which makes a good sense and 
is allowable on the ground of philology, yet I must prefer the one giv- 
en in the translation, because it better agrees with the idiom of our epis- 
tle. Comp. 2: 11 (aysaSwy x. τ. 2), and the remarks there made ; also 
10 : 22, 26. 9: 14. 

Κοινὸν ἡγησάμενος, regarding it as common or unclean, i. e. as blood 
not consecrated, but like any common blood; therefore as having no 
consecrating or cleansing power, as not having set apart those who 
were sprinkled with it, for the peculiar service of God in the gospel, 
nor laid them under peculicr obligations to be devoted to the cause of 
Christ. 

Kai τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς χάριτος ἐνυβρίσας, and hath done despite to the 
Spirit of grace. ᾿Πνυβρίσας designates the idea of treating with spite, 
or malignity, or contempt; and is nearly equivalent to χαταπατήσας 
above. “Πνεῦμα τῆς χάριτος means, either the gracious Spirit, or the 
Spirit who bestows grace, 1. e. religious, spiritual favours and gifts ; 
comp. 1 Cor. 12:4—11. Many commentators, however, interpret 
πνεῦμα τῆς χάριτος as meaning simply grace or gospel blessings. But 
this does not accord with the idiom of our epistle; comp. 6: 4, where 
apostates are described as having been petoyous πνεύματος ayiov. 
Still the question whether πνεῦμα here means agent or influence, is not 
so easily settled; for the sense is good and apposite, interpreted in ei- 
ther way. Bloomfield thinks that the verb ἐνυβρίζω is too strong to be 
applied to things, e. g. the influences, etc., of the Spirit of God ; for he 
translates it insu/é.. But is not the translation treat with disdain, con- 
tempt, or contumely, equally just? And may not this be said of those 
who became apostates? Still, I incline, with him, to the meaning, 
Spirit of God. 

(30) This warning the apostle follows up with a quotation from 
Scripture, descriptive of the tremendous nature of the punishment 
threatened. οἴδαμεν yoo... . κύριος, for we know him who hath said, 
To me belongeth retribution, 1 will render it. 'The passage is quoted 
from Deut. 92 : 35, ἘΞ.) Dp? %>, to me belongeth punishment and retri- 
bution. °Lx0ixnors, like the Hebrew np? , literally means vengeance, re- 
venge. But as this is evidently spoken of God only ἀνθρωποπάϑως, 
the meaning is, that God does that which is analogous to what men do 


HEBREWS X. 30—382. νὼ 


Dn cdg avenge Doi 4..6. ne inflicts ees alle The iden:i is 
rendered intense by the subsequent intimation that the almighty and 
eternal God will inflict such punishment. J g at the beginning, stands 
after a sentiment implied in consequence of that which precedes, viz. 
[sorer punishment will be inflicted], for (γάρ) we know etc. 

Aéyet κύριος are words of the apostle, not of the Hebrew Scriptures, 
and are probably added here, to shew the end of the quotation made, 
and to enforce the threatening; for in the same way the Hebrew 
prophets often expressed themselves when they uttered comminations, 
adding to them 37 DN , thus saith dahovals: 

Kai nal... Aaov αὐτοῦ, and again, “ The Lord will judge his 
people.” ‘This ἀπο πίβθη may be either from Deut. 32 : 86, or Ps. 135: 
14, both places containing the same expression. If it be from the 
former place, then it is on account of the clauses that intervene between 
the first quotation and this, that the writer says, καὶ madey. If from 
the latter, then the reason for subjoining καὶ πάλον, is still more evident. 

The original Hebrew 7737, from which comes the rendering κρένει, 
(found in Deut. 82: 36. Ps. 135: 14), means shall vindicate, viz. his 
people, i. e. by the punishment of their enemies. And so it may be un- 
derstood here, viz., the Lord will vindicate his faithful servants by the 
punishment of apostates. And on the whole, as the apostle here uses 
λαὸν αὐτοῦ after κρενεῖ, 1 must think it more probable that κρενεῖ is 
here employed in the sense of avenge, i. e. the Lord will vindicate his 
people by punishing those who apostatize from them and treat them with 
contempt. 

(31) Well may the writer add, φοβερὸν... ζῶντος, it is a fearful 
thing to fall into the hands of the living God. ’Huneosty εἰς τὰς χεῖρας, 
(422 582) here means ¢o be at the disposal of his vindictive power, ice. 
of his punitive justice. It is a Hebraistic mode of expression; for the 
classic writers say, τπιέσεῖν ὑπὸ τὰς χεῖρας. Ζῶντος probably here 
means ever-living, as it commonly does elsewhere, when applied to God. 
This idea, moreover, augments the dreadful nature of the punishment ; 
which is altogether apposite to the writer’s design. 

(32) The writer now proceeds to enforce his admonition against 
apostasy, by holding up to the Hebrews encouragement to persevere 
from the experience of former days, when they remained steadfast amid 
many trials and sufferings. ““ναμεμνήσκεσϑε δὲ τὰς πρότερον... 
παϑημάτων, call to mind, now, former days, in which after ye were 
enlightened ye endured a great covtest with sufferings. That is, ‘Faint 
not, be not discouraged at the prospect of trials. Look back to the 


A80 HEBREWS X. 32—34. 


time when ye patiently endured severer trials than ye now suffer, and 
still persevered. Continue to do as you have already done.’ μέρας, 
like the Hebrew 027, is often used for dime, season, indefinitely. 
(Φωτισϑέντες refers to the illumination which they received, when the 
knowledge of the Christian religion was first imparted to them. What 
the ἄϑλησις παϑημάτων means, is explained by the verses which follow. 

(33) Τοῦτο wey. ... ϑεατριζόμενοι, partly because ye were made a 
public spectacle both by reproaches and afflictions. “Τοῦτο μὲν... τοῦ- 
zo δὲ correspond, and when thus related they bear the sense here given. 
᾿Ονειδισμοῖς refers to the reproachful appellations and language, ad- 
dressed to Christians by their persecutors ; @A/weoe, to the various suffer- 
ings inflicted upon them by the same. In this way they were exposed to 
public view, ®eargefouevor, i. 6. held up to the world as persons wor- 
thy of reproach and ill-treatment, or made a spectacle to the world as 
sufferers of these things, and thus loaded with disgrace. The phrase 
ϑεατριζόμενοι is borrowed from the exposure and punishment of crim- 
inals before the assembly convened in the theatre; which was a com- 
mon practice among the Greeks and Romans. Comp. 1 Cor. 4: 9. 

Τοῦτο 02 .... γεννηϑέντας, and partly because ye were associated 
with those who were thus treated. It would be difficult to find a clas- 
sical example of giving to the verb ἀναστρέφομαν a passive sense, inas- 
much as it is commonly used in the middle voice, and employed as a 
verb neuter deponent. We may translate it, who were in like circumstan- 
ces, qui ita se gererent ; which seems at least to be ad sensum. Koi- 
vovol I suppose here to designate participation by sympathy in the suf- 
ferings of others, and contributing of one’s substance to make up the 
losses of those who had been persecuted. 

(34) Aci yao... . συνεπαϑήσατε, for ye did truly sympathize with 
my bonds. So some manuscripts and editions, with several of the fa- 
thers, reading δεσμοῖς wou; which is the reading of the received text, 
and is preferred by Matthiae, Michaelis, Carpzoff, Noesselt, and many 
others; see in Bloomfield, who prefers δεσμοῖς μου, and has given am- 
ple reasons for the preference. At least so they seem to me, on a re- 
cent examination of the subject. That the Greeks used the verb συμ- 
πάσχομαν in connection with things as well as persons, there can be 
no ground to doubt; as Bloomfield has fully shewn. 

Kai τὴν conayyy.... προσεδέξασϑε, and cheerfully endured the 
plundering of your own property. This was a part of the dimers, 
which they had suffered in former times. 

1ινώσκοντες exer... . μένουσαν, knowing that ye have for your- 


HEBREWS X. 34—37. 481 


selves in heaven a possession of a better and more lasting nature. 
“Lavrois, Dativus commodi ; the ἕν here inserted before ἑαυτοῖς, In 
some copies, seems plainly not to be genuine. Ὑπαρξεν, any thing 
possessed, estate, property. Κρείττονα, better than earthly possessions, 
i.e. spiritual, heavenly, not material and earthly. 77ένουσαν, endur- 
ing, permanent, not perishable, fleeting, temporary, like all earthly pos- 
sessions. 

(85) My ἀποβάλητε..... μεγάλην, cast not away then your confi- 
dence, which will obtain a great reward. hat is, act as you have 
formerly done, and thus gain possession of the zgelrrova χαὶ μένουσαν 
ὕπαρξιν. 

(36) ᾿Ὑπομονῆς yao... . ἐπαγγελίαν, for ye have need of patience, 
tn order that when ye have done the will of God ye may receive the 
promised blessing. Teg introduces a reason why they should not cast 
away their παρδησία, but still hold out to cherish it. Patience they 
needed, because of the many trials and temptations to which they were 
still exposed. To do the will of God, here, is to obey the requirement 
to believe and trust in Christ. “Lnuyyediav, thing promised, reward 
proffered ; for the promise itself they had already received. “Laayye- 
λίαν here, and μισϑαποδοσίαν in v.35, both refer to the ὕπαρξιν 
κρείττονα καὶ μένουσαν mentioned in v. 94, and which is there repre- 
sented as promised to them in case of obedience. 

(87) "Lee γὰρ μικρὸν... χρονιεῖ, for yet a very little while, and 
he who ts coming will come, and will not delay. The γάρ here refers 
to a clause implied, viz. [ye shall receive the promised blessing], for etc. 
Bloomfield has placed the implication farther back ; I think the above meth- 
od is more simple and easy. ‘The sentiment of the verse isthis: ‘The 
Messiah (ὦ ἐρχόμενος) will speedily come, and, by destroying the Jewish 
power, put an end to the sufferings which your persecutors inflict upon 
you;’ comp. Matt. xxiv. Ὅσον ὅσον is an intensive form of expression, 
which is applied either to things great or small, like 3872 4N72. It is em- 
ployed in the like way, however, by the classic Greek authors. The whole 
phrase resembles that in Hab. 2: 3, AWN? N> N27 N2 1D, for it (viz. 
the vision) wll surely come to pass, it will not delay. If however it be 
an actual quotation, the application of the words is different from that 
of the original, and the writer designed merely to use the language of 
the prophet to express his own ideas. In fact, the Septuagint version 
of the passage in Habakkuk differs slightly from the words used by 
the apostle. It runs thus: ore ἐρχόμενος ἥξει, καὶ οὐ μὴ χρονίσῃ. It 
seems quite probable, (considering the quotation from Hab.2: 4, which 


422 HEBREWS X. 37, 38. 


follows), that the apostle had the Hebrew expression above quoted in 
his mind. But it seems equally plain, also, that he has made use of it 
only as the medium of expressing his own particular idea, and not as a 
designed quotation used according to the exact idea of the original. I 
have marked it as a quotation, however, in my version, because the 
words appear to be quoted. 

(38) Ὃ δὲ δίκαιος ἐκ πίστεως Cryostat, the just, moreover, shall live 
by faith. Aé copulative and wih ie ἢ as often. In Hab. 2: 4, it 
runs thus, 77, 1039782 P71, which (if rendered according to the 
accents) will be, the just by Soa shall live, i.e. the just man who has 
faith shall be preserved. ‘The expression in our verse is capable of the 
same translation, and Dr. Knapp has pointed it so as to be construed in 
this way. But I apprehend, after all, that this is not the meaning of 
either the Hebrew or Greek phrase. faith is put here as the means 
of preservation, in opposition to apostasy or defection in the other part 
of the verse, which is the means of destruction or disapprobation. ‘A 
persevering confidence or belief in Christ,’ (the writer means to say), 
‘ will be the means of preservation, when the Lord shall come to exe- 
cute his judgments upon the Jewish nation.’ So the Seventy under- 
stood the phrase, which they have rendered ὁ δὲ δίκαιος ἔκ niotews 
μου ξήσεται; as if they read "M2:283 instead of In:12NQ. The 
meaning of ἐκ πίστεώς μου must of course be, by faith or confidence in 
me, which expresses the condition of being saved, rather than the pecu- 
liar character of the person who is saved. I understand the expression 
in Hebrew and in our epistle, in a similar way. If the apostle meant 
to quote here, (which can hardly be doubted), it is evident that he has 
not adhered to the text of the Septuagint. 

Kai ἐὰν ὑποστείληται.. . .. ἐν αὐτῷ, also’ if any one draw back, my 
soul hath no pleasure in him. Kai is probably an elliptical expression 
here, for καὶ λέγει, 1. 6. καὶ λέγει ὁ ϑεὸς vel η γραφή. The latter re- 
sembles the usage of this epistle; 5661: 10. 10: 17. 

"Fav ὑποστείλητοι x. t. 4. seems plainly to be a quotation from Hab. 
2:4, The apostle, however, has changed the order of the verse, quot- 
ing the latter part of it first, and the former part last. The original 
Hebrew runs thus, 12 1282 πηγῶν N> mbay mim, behold the scorn- 
ful, his mind shall not be happy s j or (as Gesenius bamelnes| See! he 
whose soul is unbelicving, shall on this account be unkappy. The 
Seventy, who have rendered the Hebrew in exact accordance with the 
words of our epistle, must have read ‘Ww here, as they did 79297N3 in 
the clause preceding. This is the more probable reading, but it can- 


HEBREWS X. 39.— ΧΙ], 1. 483 


not now be critically defended. We can only say, therefore, that the 
quotation of the apostle is, on general grounds, ad sensum but not ad 
literam. The sentiment of the Hebrew is, that the scorner or unbe- 
liever of that day should be unhappy; the sentiment of the apostle, that 
the unbeliever, i.e. the apostate Christian who renounces his religion, 
shall incur divine disapprobation. The same sentiment lies at the foun- 
dation, in both cases. Such disapprobation the last clause expresses, 
οὐχ εὐδοκεῖ ἡ ψυχή μου ἐν αὐτῷ, where the negative form of expression 
is employed (as often in sacred and also in classical writings) instead of 
the affirmative, i.e. he shall be an object of my displeasure. 

(39) “‘Hlueic δὲ οὐκ... . ἀπώλειαν, but we are not of those who draw 
back to destruction. ᾿Ὑποστολῆς is the abstract noun, shrinking back, 
timidity, withdrawing ; and (as is common) the abstract is here put 
for the concrete, i.e. for persons who withdraw or shrink back, viz. 
from their Christian profession. ‘The consequence of such withdraw- 
ing is ἀπώλεια ; see vs. 26, 27. 

‘Alda πίστεως εἰς περιποίησιν ψυχῆς, but of those who believe to the 
salvation of the soul. ἹΠ]εριποίησεν means lit. obtaining, acquiring, 
possessing. But as it is here placed in antithesis to ἀπώλειαν, it plain- 
ly means saving or salvation. ITiorews, faith, belief, is an abstract 
noun used instead of a concrete, in the same manner as ὑποστολῆς 
above ; i.e. we belong to those who believe to the saving of their souls. 


Having mentioned faith, i. 6. belief or confidence, as a peculiar and most important character- 
istic of those who persevere in the Christian religion so as to secure their salvation, the writer, 
now proceeds, with great force and propriety, to make his appeal to the Old Testament Scriptures 
in order to shew that faith or confidence in the divine promises has, in all ages, been the means 
of perseverance in true religion, and consequently of salvation. In 10: 34—39,the apostle had 
exhorted his readers to persevere in waiting for the rewards of a future world, which he names, 
ὕπαρξιν ἐν οὐρανοῖς χρείττονα καὶ μένουσαν .... μισϑαποδοσίαν uEycany.... τὴν 
ἐπαγγελίαν. He now goes on to shew more fully that the very nature of faith and the character 
of believers demand this. All believers in every age have done so; and the Hebrews ought to fol- 
fow their example. See on the nature of the faith brought to view in this chapter, p. 166. 6. seq. 


CHAP. XI. 


(1) The general nature of fatth is first explained. “Hore δὲ πίστις 
.... βλεπομένων, now faith is confidence in respect to things hoped 
Sor—evidence of things not scen. “Ynooracts, confidence, confident 
expectation. Others with Chrysostom, ‘ Faith gives reality or substance 
to things hoped for.’ The sense is good; but the shade of meaning is 


484 HEBREWS ΧΙ. 1. 


not exactly hit. If this were the idea of ὑπόστασις, we might expect 
the antithetic word to be ἀσωμάτων or ἀνύλων, incorporeal or immate- 
rial things, instead of ἐλπιζομένων. The use of ὑπόστασις, in the 
sense of confidence, etc., belongs to the later Greek, and is frequent in 
the New Testament. This sense is evidently appropriate here. The 
writer had just been exhorting his readers not to cast away their confi- 
dence or boldness, which would ensure a great reward, 10: 35. If any 
one should object to this exhortation, that the objects of reward are all 
future and unseen; the reply is, that ‘the very nature of belief or faith, 
implies confidence in respect to objects of this kind. ΑἹ] the patri- 
archs and prophets possessed such faith” “LAneCouevwy means, things 
future which are the objects of hope, and not of present fruition. The 
things future, are the rewards which have just been mentioned above. 

" Eheyyos, proof, means of proving, evidence; it also means swmma- 
ry, contents ; conviction, contradiction, reproof, etc.; but these mean- 
ings are not to our purpose. Kuinoel proposes persuasio firma. The 
sense is good, but not warranted by usage. I must therefore adhere to 
the sense of evidence, proof. This last idea I have expressed in the 
translation. ‘The meaning is, that faith in the divine word and promises, 
is equivalent to, or supplies the place of, proof or demonstration in re- 
gard to the objects of the unseen world, i.e. it satisfies the mind re- 
specting their reality and importance, as proof or demonstration is wont 
to do. I have omitted the copula (and) before the word in the version 
which corresponds to ἔλέγχος, because the author has omitted it, and it 
is not necessary in order to render the version intelligible. 

That the faith here brought to view and adverted to through chap. 
x1., is not specifically what some theologians call saving faith, viz. faith 
in Christ in an appropriate and limited sense, is evident from the nature 
of the examples which are subjoined by the writer; e. g. vs. 3, 4, 5, 7, 
8, 11, etc. In this chapter, faith is belef or confidence generally in 
divine declarations, of whatever nature they may be; for it does not al- 
ways have respect even to promises, or to the future; e.g. v. 3. Now 
the same confidence in what God declares, respecting subjects of such 
a nature as are brought to view in this chapter, would lead the person 
who exercises it to confide in all which God might declare respecting 
the Messiah ; and consequently, to belief in Christ. It is then called 
by theologians, saving faith. But it should be remembered, that this 
is only a convenient technical phrase of modern theology ; not one em- 
ployed by the sacred writers. The true and essential nature of faith, 
is confidence in God, belief in his declarations; and whether this be 


HEBREWS ΧΙ. 1—3. 485 


exercised by believing in the Scripture account of the creation of the 
world; or, (as Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Sarah, and others, exer- 
cised it), in respect to specific objects; or by believing on the Messiah ; 
it is evidently the same disposition of mind in all cases. It is confidence 
in God. It is therefore with perfect propriety, that our author here 
excites the Hebrews to persevere in their Christian faith, by various 
examples which exhibit the power of faith in the ancient worthies, as 
a principle of pious and virtuous belief and action. 

(2) ᾿δν ταύτῃ γὰρ. ... πρεσβύτεροι, for by this were the ancients 
commended. aotvgém not unfrequently means to applaud, praise, 
commend, openly signify approbation; see Wahl’s Lex. No. 2. This 
is evidently the sense of the word here. The yao here is yao illustran- 
tis et confirmantis. It is as much as to say: [It is so], for the an- 
cients, etc. 

(3) Iliozec νοοῦμεν... .. γεγονέναι, by faith we perceive that the 
worlds were formed by the word of God, so that the things which are 
seen were not made from those which appear. ΤΠ ίστει, confidence in the 
account which the Scriptures (viz. Gen. 1.) give of the creation. It is 
confidence in God, too; for there could be no other witness of what was 
then done; at Jeast there could be none of the human race. ΝΟοῦμεν, 
we perceive, apprehend, attain to an apprehension of. Katnoriodat, 
ordinare, disponere, not simply to create or bring into being, but also to 
jit, prepare, form, i. e. reduce to form and order. ἍἹώνας, the world ; 
see on Heb. 1: 2, in respect to the plural use of this word. That αἰώ- 
vas in this case cannot mean seculum or acvum, is sufficiently plain ; 
for in what tolerable sense could the writer say, that secudum or aevum 
was not made ἐκ φαινομένων, i. 4. was made ἐκ μὴ φαινομένων, 1. 6. 
out of nothing? ‘That the assertion in the negative form, is of the 
same import as if it were of the positive form, might be easily shewn by 
appeal to a multitude of the like cases of λετότης in the Scriptures. 
‘John confessed, and denied not, but confessed, John 1: 20;’ where 
οὐκ ἠρνήσατο plainly conveys the same idea as ὡμολόγησε. As to 
classical usage, the commentary on the next clause may be consulted. 
In what sense, too, could seculum or aevum be called βλεπόμενα 7 
This word means, olyects visible to the sight or palpable to the senses, 
i. e, material objects. Dacvoueva means the same thing; there being 
no more difference between the two words in Greek, as characterizing 
objects, than there is between seen and apparent in English. The as- 
sertion of the writer then is, that ‘visible objects, i. 6. the visible crea- 
tion, did not spring from objects that were apparent,’ i. e. that the visible 

62 


480 NEBREWs XI. 3. 


creation was not made out of matter before existing ; which is the same 
as to say, that the world was created or brought into existence by the 
word of God simply, and was not a mere reducing to order materials 
that before existed; see on the succeeding clause of the verse, in the 
sequel. At all events, the idea of a seculum or aevum ‘being framed 
(xarnoriovac) by the word of God,’ presents an incongruity of which 
no example can be found in the sacred writers. Equally incongruous 
would ἐποίησε τοὺς αἰῶνος in 1:2 be, if αἰών were to be rendered 
seculum. “Pyucre ϑεοῦ, by the command of God; comp. Gen. 1,: 3, 
6, 9, 11, 14, 20, 24, 46. Ps. 33:6. 2 Pet. 3: 5. 

Fig τὸ μὴ ἐκ φαινομένων ta βλεπόμενα γεγονέναι, a controverted, 
and somewhat difficult expression. If we construe it as the text now 
stands, the μι7) must naturally be joined with γεγονέναι, and it must be 
rendered, so that things visible were not made of things which do ap- 
pear. Accordingly Pierce insists on this construction, and maintains 
that the sense is, ‘So that things visible might appear not to have been 
made of things apparent, i. e. out of pre-existing matter.’ 

Those who adopt a different construction of the passage maintain, 
that εἰς τὸ μὴ ἐκ φαινομένων may be translated, as if it were written 
εἰς τὸ ἐχ μὴ φαινομένων. That such a metathesis of the negative μή; 
or of its equivalent οὐ, ovz,is allowable, or at least that it is not un- 
common, they endeavour to shew by appealing to examples; e. g. ὦ 
Mace. 7:28, ὅτε οὐκ ἐξ ὄντων ἐποίησεν αὐτὰ ὁ 80g, which 
plainly means, ‘God made them [heaven and earth] from things that 
do not exist,’ i. 6. out of nothing. So Arrian, de Exp. Alex. VII. 23, 
“These things I do not blame, unless that οὐκ ἐπὶ μεγάλοις 
μεγάλως διεσπουδάξετο, he was too much occupied with small matters ;” 
where Οὐχ seems to qualify μεγάλοις. Plutarch, Paedagog. IX. 15, “I 
should say that promptitude of speaking on any matter is not to be alto- 
gether disapproved; nor, on the other hand, ταύτην οὐχ ἐπὶ ἀξίοις 
ἀσκεῖν, is it to be practised in respect to {γι ἴηι: subjects.” So the 
Greek οὐκ ἔφη εἴναι, he said he would not come. Arrian, Anab. I. 5, 4, 
οὐκ ἔφη χρῆναι ἐν λόγῳ τίϑεσθϑαι Avraguatas, he said that the 
Autariatae were not to be put into the account. Polyb. p. 1831, τοὺς 
μὴ φασχοντας ἀπολύειν, saying that they were not to be absolved. If 
the examples where φημί is used, be abstracted from the others, there 
are still a sufficient number, they aver, to shew that a metathesis of the 
negative particle μη), is not without parallels. 

Chrysostom also transposed μή here, and found no difficulty in it. 
He paraphrases it thus, ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων τὰ ὄντα ἐποίησεν ὁ ϑεός" ἐκ τῶν 


HEBREWS ΧΙ. 9. 457 


«ἡ φαινομένων, τὰ φαινόμενα, ἐκ τῶν μὴ ὑφεστώτων, τὰ ὑφεστῶτα. 
So the Vulgate, Erasmus, Luther, Wolfius, and most of the later inter- 
preters. 

That the metathesis of μη) in this case, so as to construe it in connec- 
tion with φαινομένων, may be admissible, there can indeed be but little 
doubt. Yet after all, it is unnecessary ; for the phrase plainly has the 
same meaning, when translated agreeably to its present arrangement, 
if the nature of such a λέτότης be well understood. There is no need 
of understanding the examples cited from the classics, in a different 
way. And indeed, take them which way we will, (either by way of 
metathesis in respect to the οὐχ or μή), or of joining the negative with 
the verb or participle that follows), the sense, all must admit, is plain, 
and is substantially one and the same. ‘These examples, it must also 
be admitted, cast sufficient light upon the sense of the passage Heb. 
11: 3, so as to require no hesitation about admitting a meaning so well 
supported by parallel examples, and which indeed the context seems to 
demand. 

We may also compare phraseology of a like nature, to be found in 
other parts of Paul’s writings. In Rom, 4: 17, he says, ‘God restores 
the dead to life, and calls τὰ po) ὄντα wg ὄντα," i. 6. summons [to fulfil 
his own purposes] things that do not exist, as though they did exist. In 
like manner, Philo, in Lib. de Creat. Mundi, p. 728, says, τὰ yao μὴ 
ὄντα ἐχάλησεν ὁ ϑεὸς εἰς TO εἶναι, things which existed not, God called 
into existence. That μὴ φαινομένων is equivalent to μη) ὄντων, needs 
not to be formally proved. Soin Hebrew, δὲ 22 quod mucnitur, is a 
customary expression for ens or existens; and ΕΣ 2 Nd, for res non ez- 
istens, nihilum. 

On the whole, then, we must regard the phrase in question as equiva- 
lent to the expression in our language, ‘ The visible creation was formed 
from nothing,’ i. e. it came into existence by the command of God, and 
and was not formed out of any pre-existing materials. Deus ex nihilo 
mundum fecit, conveys the same idea. Such a phrase does not mean, 
that nothing was the material (so to speak) out of which the world was 
constructed, for there would be no sense in this; but it merely denies 
that any such material existed. This entirely agrees with the preceding 
clause of the text, which asserts that the command of God brought the 
universe into existence; and this is altogether confirmed by Gen. 1. 
Here Moses represents, in v. 1, the heavens and earth as first brought 
into existence by divine power, and afterwards as formed and arranged 
into their present order ; comp. Gen. 1: 1, with Gen. 1 : 2 and the se- 


488 HEBREws XI. 3, 4. 


quel of the chapter. In fact, if the manner of assertion in our text be 
strictly scanned, it will be found to be more exact and philosophical 
than the Latin ex nihilo Deus mundum fecit, or the English,God made 
the world out of nothing. Tach of these phrases presents the seeming 
incongruity of asserting that nothing was the material out of whieh the 
world was made. But our author is more strictly conformed to philo- 
~ sophical propriety, when he says, ‘ Things visible were not made out of 
things that are visible,’ 1. 6. the visible creation was brought into exist- 
ence by the word or command of God simply, and was not formed or 
fitted up out of any pre-existing materials. Exactly so do we find the 
assertion in 2 Macc. 7: 28, οὐχ ἐξ ὄντων ἐποίησεν αὐτὰ ὁ ϑεὸς, God 
did not make them [heaven and earth] out of things existing, i. e. he 
strictly created them. 

Well may it be suggested, that faith in the divine word was requisite 
to believe this; inasmuch as Thales, Plato, Aristotle, and other eminent 
philosophers who followed not the divine word, indulged in speculations 
about the creation of the world, which were either very visionary, or 
quite different from the view which Moses has given. 

(4) Πίστει whstova.... τῷ ϑεῷ, by faith Abel offered to God a 
better sacrifice than Cain. Πλείονα, better, more excellent ; so frequent- 
ly, e.g. Matt. 6: 25. Luke 12: 23. Matt. 12: 41,45. Mark 12: 33. 
Luke 11:31. Heb. 3:3. Rev. 2: 19. On what account the sacrifice 
of Abel was more acceptable, commentators have speculated much, 
and assigned a great variety of causes. But it may be asked: Does not 
our text contain a solution of this question? Abel made his offering ἐπ 
faith; the implication is that Cain did not, and therefore it was not 
accepted. 

Av ἧς ἐμαρτυρήϑη .... ϑεοῦ, on account of which ffaith] he was 
commended as rightcous, God himself commending his oblations. How 


this was done, is not said in Gen. 4: 4. But most probably it was by 
fire sent from heaven, which consumed the sacrifice; comp. Gen. 15: 
17. Lev. 9: 24. Judg. 6:21. 1 Chron. 21: 26. 27:1. 1 K. 18:38. 
The appellation δίκαιος is given to Abel, in Matt. 23:35. 1 John 
3:12. 

Kai ov αὐτῆς anodaver ἔτει λαλεῖ, and by it, though dead, he con- 
tinues to speak. Av αὐτῆς, viz. by his faith. .71αλεῖ and λαλεῖται are 
both supported by good authorities. The former is preferred by Gro- 
tius, Hammond, Schmidt, Valkenaer, Michaelis, Storr, Rosenmueller, 
Bengel, Griesbach, Knapp, Schulz, Schott, etc ; the latter, by Wetstein, 
Matthiae, Heinrichs, Tittmann, etc., and has the numerical majority of 


neBREWS ΧΙ, 4, 5. A489 | 


manuscripts, versions, and editions, in its favour. Where the balance 
of authority is on the whole nearly equal, I cannot well hesitate to pre- 
fer λαλεῖ to λαλεῖται. The sense of the latter would be equivalent to 
μαρτυρεῖται, sc. laudatur,is commended. But this idea has been twice 
suggested before in the same verse, by μαρτυρέῖταν and μαρτυροῦντος 
...%sov. It is hardly probable that it would be a third time repeated. 
But λαλεῖ, I apprehend, has reference to Gen. 4: 10, where the ‘voice 
of Abel’s blood is said to cry to God from the ground.’ In Heb. 12: 
14 also, our author represents the blood of Christ and of Abel as speak- 
ing, λαλοῦντι. The form of expression only, in our verse, seems to be 
borrowed from the thought in Gen. 4: 10; for here it is the faith of 
Abel which makes him speak after his death, viz. he speaks by his faith 
to those who should come after him, exhorting and encouraging them 
to follow his example. In other words, his example of faith affords ad- 
monition and instruction to succeeding ages. 

(5) Mores’ Evay..., ἃ 8809, by faith Enoch was translated that 
he might not sce death, and he was not found, because God had trans- 
dated him. Tov μὴ ἰδεῖν is equivalent here to εἰς τὸ μὴ ἰδεῖν or διὰ 
τὸ μὴ ἰδεῖν. The Hebrew has DN in npd, God took him, where 
our author uses μέτέϑηχε. The original in Gen. 5: 24 says nothing 
respecting the point, whether Enoch was translated alive or after death. 
Kai οὐχ evgioxero is the Septuagint version of the Hebrew 3:27, he 
was not, sc. he was no more among men; like to the expression of Li- 
vy (I. 16) respecting Romulus, “ Nec deinde in terris Romulus fuit.” 
The idea in the Hebrew and Greek, is for substance the same; for οὐχ 
εὑρίσκετο means, he was no more to be met with, he was no more extant 
(N22 ND), among men. But all the Targumists, viz. Onkelos, Jona- 
than, and the author of the Jerusalem ‘l'argum, understand IMnoch to 
have been translated without dying. Sothe Comment. Bereschith Rab- 
ba, parasch. 25. f. 28. So, probably, the Son of Sirach, 49:14. I 
may add, that this is a very natural deduction from the brief notice of 
Enoch’s translation in Gen. 5:24. Early death is commonly repre- 
sented, in the Old Testament, as the punishment of sin; and that “the 
wicked should not live out half their days,” was the persuasion of most 
good men in ancient times. If then Enoch died before translation, how 
could his removal to another world have been regarded as an evidence 
of his extraordinary piety? ‘The texts to which Dindorf has appealed, 
in his notes added to the commentary of Ernesti, are very far from sup- 
porting the position, that the ancient Jews regarded premature death as 
a testimony of heaven in favour of him who was the subject of it. Nor 


499 urprews XI. 5, 6. 


is there any need of Rosenmueller’s concession here, viz. that the apos- 
Ue, in his account of Enoch’s removal, has accommodated himself to 
the Jewish traditionary opinions. It may indeed be, that a tradition 
existed among the Jews, that Enoch “did not see death.” But that 
this was founded in fact, seems to be plainly deducible from the man- 
ner of the narration in Hebrew, and from the state of opinion in ancient 
times respecting early death. 

Iloo γὰρ t7¢.-.. τῷ Dem, for before his translation he is commend- 
ed, as having pleased God. The Hebrew says, σῶν 5725 yea 
my>Nt, and Enoch walked with God, which denotes a state of com- 
munion and friendship with God, and implies, of course, a complacen- 
cy in the divine mind with respect to him. ‘The apostle, therefore, ap- 
peals to the sense of the Scriptures in this case, and not to the words. 
Nor does he mean to say, that the testimony respecting Enoch’s pleas- 
ing God was given before his translation ; but that the testimony given in 
the divine word, respects his having pleased God before his translation. 
Evagsoréo governs the Dative. The γάρ at the beginning of the 
phrase, introduces a clause designed to shew that Enoch must have act- 
ed under the influence of faith; he could not have pleased God without 
it. 

(6) The writer now suggests the: grounds on which he builds the 
conclusion, that Enoch was translated on account of his faith; viz. 
χωρὶς δὲ πίστεως .... εὐαρεστῆσαι, but without faith it is impossible 
to please [him]. The truth of this he rests upon his own declaration, 
and the common opinion on this subject which he expects all his read- 
ers to entertain. 

Πιστεῦσαι yao Ost... . γίνεται, for he who cometh to God must be- 
lieve that he exists, and that he will reward those who seek him. Tuo 
here introduces a clause which confirms the necessity of faith in an ac- 
ceptable worshipper. Προσερχόμενον τῷ Gem designates him who 
worships God, Det cultorem ; see 7:25. 'The phraseology is probably 
derived from going up to the temple to worship, in the sanctuary 
where God dwelt by his peculiar presence. Some have understood the 
phrase as referring to an approach to God in the invisible world, i. e. 
in heaven; but the idea here is like that expressed by the Hebrew 
phrases, going to God, returning to him, etc., which usually denote ap- 
proach in the present world to his spiritual presence. 

Toig ἐχξητοῦσιν αὐτὸν, comp. the Hebrew D7 DN UES, OVION WIT, 
which are employed to designate the worship and prayers of those who 
are piously devoted to the service of God. 


HEBREWS ΧΙ. 6, 7. 491 


The two truths, fundamental to all that can properly be called reli- 
gion, are here adverted to. The first is, a belief that God exists; the 
second, that he is the moral governor of the universe, i. 6. that he re- 
wards those who are pious, and consequently punishes those who are not 
so. He who denies these, denies all that sanctions religion, and makes 
it binding upon the consciences of men. 

(7) Tliotse.... οἴκου αὐτοῦ, by faith Noah, being divinely ad- 
monished respecting things not yet apparent, with reverence prepared 
an ark for the safety of his household. Nonuatcodets, comp. 8:5 
and Gen. 6: 13, 14. 7: 1—5. 27ηδέπω βλεπομένων, i. 6. the future 
flood, no signs of which were as yet visible. The choice of expression, 
however, seems evidently to have been dictated by the ov βλεπομένων 
inv. 1. “υλαβηϑείς may be taken either in the sense of fearing, viz. 
fearing the destruction which was coming, or it may be understood of 
the reverence which he paid to the divine admonition. I have translat- 
ed it as bearing the latter sense, since this makes most directly for the 
apostle’s object, which is to exhibit the faith which Noah exercised with 
regard to the divine warning. 

Δὶς σωτηρίαν, for the saving or safety. It is often applied to tem- 
poral security or deliverance, like the Hebrew τσ δος 

Ae ἧς narénowe.... κληρονόμος, by which [faith] he condemned the 
world, and obtained the justification which is by faith. “Hg 1 refer to 
πίστεως, as do Sykes, Heinrichs, Dindorf, Kuinoel, Bloomfield, and 
others. Aodonoy means wicked men, men of a mere worldly spirit; of- 
ten so in the New Testament. Noah condemned these by an example 
of faith in the divine warnings, while the world around him remained 
impenitent and unbelieving. In other words, his conduct condemned 
theirs. 

‘Lyévero χληρονόμος, i. 4. ἐκληρονόμησε, i. 6. obtained, acquired, be- 
came possessor of. So Abraham is, in like manner, said to be justified 
by faith or belief (Rom. tv.), viz. belief in the promise of God respect- 
ing a future seed. On account of Noah’s faith he was counted ᾿ς, 
δίκαιος (comp. v. 4 above), or he was regarded or treated as δίχαιος. 

From this verse, then, we may conclude that faith may be of a justi- 
fying nature, i. e. such as is connected with the justification or pardon 
of the individual who exercises it, without being specifically directed to 
Christ as its object ; for here, the object of Noah’s faith was, the divine 
admonitions and comminations in regard to the flood. This only serves 
to shew that faith, in its generic nature, has been the same in every 
age ; and that it is essentially a practical belief in divine declarations. 


492 ΠῚ weBREWs XI. 8—10. 


(8) Πίσιει zahovmevog.... κληρονομίαν, by faith Abraham obey- 
ed, when called to go forth unto the place which he was to receive for a 
possession; see Gen. 12: 1—4. Kadovuevos, summoned, invited, bid, 
’ Hee Osiv, viz. from his own country and kindred, Gen. 12: 1. Tonov 
refers to dhe land of Canaan, Palestine, the future possession of which 
was promised to him. His faith in this case was manifested, by believ- 
ing in this promise. 

Kui ἐξῆχϑε. ... ἔρχεται, yea, he went forth not knowing whither he 
was going. In καὶ ἐξῆλϑε intensity is added by the καὶ to the phrase 
that follows; I have translated it accordingly. The meaning is, * he 
even went out, ignorant of the place to which he was going; which 
serves to give a higher idea of the strength of Abraham’s faith, than if 
we should suppose him to be well informed respecting the land of Ca- 
naan before he went to it. 

(9) Πίστει παρῴκησεν... . ἀλλοτρίαν, by faith he sqcpourned in the 
land of promise, while it belonged to strangers. Πίστει, by faith he 
did this, i. e. by confidence in the promises which God had made res- 
pecting the future possession of this land and respecting his offspring, 
he was moved to sojourn in Canaan while it belonged to foreigners. 
Lis γὴν for ἐν yy. Such a use of εἰς with the Accus. before a noun of 
place in which one is represented as dwelling, is not unfrequent in the 
New Testament. See εἰς in Brettsch. Lex. 5. c. The idiom is found 
even in the classics. “ὃς before ἀλλοτρίαν makes the predicate addo- 
τρίαν more emphatic. In sense the phrase differs not materially from 
οὐκ ἰδίαν. 

"Ev σχηναῖς κατοικήσας .... αὐτῆς, dwelling in tents, together with 
Isaac and Jacob who were likewise heirs of the same promise. That is, 
the promise was made to Abraham and his seed. What was not fulfil- 
led in him, was to have its accomplishment in them. Hence συγκληρο- 
νόμων, fellow-heirs, joint-possessors, viz. with Abraham; the same 
promise being made to them as to him, respecting the land of Canaan 
and their future posterity. 

(10) “L&edeyeto yao.... Geos, for he expected a city which hath 
foundations, whose builder and maker is God. (θεμελίους ἔχουσαν, 
firmly built, well founded. 'The plural (ϑεμελίους) augments the idea 
of firmness of construction. “΄ημεουργός means, originally, one who ἴα: 
bours for the public good, from δήμιος publicus, ad populum pertinens, 
and ἔργον opus. Hence, secondarily, it is transferred to designate a 
labourer or artificer of any kind. It is often applied by the heathen 
writers to designate the Divinity; and by Philo, Josephus, and the 


neBRews ΧΙ, 10, 11. 493 


Christian fathers, it is employed as an epithet of the true God. Here 
however, it is used as nearly a synonyme of τεχνίτης; the latter con- 
veying the idea of a builder skilled in the rules of his art, but δημιουρ- 
γός meaning more simply, maker, builder, fabricator. 

The meaning of the whole verse most evidently is, that Abraham 
looked for a permanent abode in the heavenly country, i. e. his hopes 
and expectations were placed upon the world to come. It was faith in 
this which was ἔλεγχος οὐ βλεπομένων, and which moved him to obey 
the commands of God, and to do and suffer whatever he required. The 
fact, then, that saints under the Old ‘Testament were moved, in their 
conduct, by considerations that had respect to the invisible world or an 
immortal state of existence, is plainly implied here by the reasoning of 
the apostle. See vs. 14, 16. 

(11) Πίστει καὶ αὐτὴ .. -. ἔλαβε, by fuith, also, Sarah herself re- 
ceived the power of conception. Πίστει, by faith; how, or when? 
For when God announced to Abraham that he should have a son by 
Sarah (Gen. 18: 10), she seems to have been in a state of unbelief, 
Gen. 18: 12. But although it is true that Sarah laughed on that occa- 
sion, and it must be admitted that this was occasioned partly by her in- 
credulity, as Gen. 18: 13—15 shews; yet the same thing is affirmed of 
Abraham, Gen. 17: 17. The truth seems to be, that the first annunci- 
ation that a child would spring from them, occasioned both in his and 
Sarah’s mind a feeling of incongruity, or of impossibility that the course 
of nature should be so reversed. Subsequent consideration brought 
both to a full belief in the reality of the promised future blessing. The 
history of this is not expressly given in Genesis with respect to Sarah, 
but it is implied. 

Kal αὐτὴ Σάῤῥα, Sarah herself also. Kai αὐτή, in this case, refers 
particularly to the fact that Sarah was barren, Gen. 16: 1, and that she 
was far advanced in old age, Gen. 18: 11. ‘The meaning is, that faith 
gave even to Sarah, unpromising as her condition was in respect to 
offspring, the power of conception, i. e. by faith she obtained this bless- 
ing. Lic καταβολὴν σπέρματος, words tortured to the disgust of every 
delicate reader, by some of the critics. Even Wahl says, “ she receiv- 
ed strength εἰς τὸ δέχεσϑαι σπέρμα καταβεβλημένον (i.e. by Abraham) 
εἰς τὴν μήτραν." Did this need any supernatural strength? I con- 
strue the phrase very differently. Δαταβολὴν means foundation, com- 

.mencement, beginning. Now what is the foundation or commencement 
σπέρματος, of offspring or progeny? Conception. The true idea of 
the phrase, then, appears to be fully given by the version above. In 

63 


494 neBRews ΧΙ. 11---19.Ψ 


this view of the phrase, I observe, Dr. Schulz concurs, rendering δύνα- 
μὲν εἰς καταβολὴν σπέρματος by das Vermogen zur Empfangniss, the 
power of conception. Bretschneider translates : Prolem facere, foetum 
edere, which does not essentially differ. 

Kai παρὰ xogov.... ἐπαγγειλάμενον, and this beyond the usual 
time of life, inasmuch as she regarded him as faithful who had promised, 
Kai παρὰ καιρόν, see Gen. 18: 11. “Let πιστὸν x. τ. 2, which shews 
that the apostle considered it as quite certain, that Sarah, like her hus- 
band, did come to full confidence in the divine promise. 

(12) Aco καὶ ag ἑνὸς .. .. πλήϑει, Wherefore even from one who 
was dead as to such things, there sprang [a seed] like the stars of 
heaven for multitude. v0, on account of which faith, viz. faith of Sarah, 
or perhaps of Abraham and Sarah. Kai ag’ ἑνός, even from a single 
individual, is a designed antithesis to the multitude who are afterwards 
mentioned; consequently it heightens the description. Al ταῦτα 
γενεκρωμένου means, incapable [according to the ordinary laws of na- 
ture] of procreation ; xai.... νενεχρωμένου, i.e. not only one individ- 
ual, but one even dead; see the same description in Rom. 4: 19. 
Ταῦτα is governed by κατά understood. ἄαϑως τὰ ἄστρα x. τ.}, that 
is, a very great number; comp. Gen. 15: 5. 22: 17. 

Kai ὡς a@uuos.... ἀναρίϑμητος, and like the send upon the shore 
of the sea, which cannot be numbered, i.e. an exceedingly great multi- 
tude. Χεῖλος ϑαλάσσης, lit. lip of the sea, which means the shore. So 
the word is used by profane Greek writers also; as Jabiwm is by the 
Latin ones. So the Hebrew mw, Gen. 22: 17; which compare. 

(13) Kara πίστιν... ἐπαγγελίας, these all died in faith, not hav- 
ing received the blessings promised. Οὗτοι mavtes—who? Abraham, 
Isaac, Jacob, and Sarah, mentioned in vs. 8—12; for οὗτοι cannot 
well be here extended to all who are mentioned in the preceding part 
of the chapter, because the “ promised blessings’ here named, are those 
which were assured to the Hebrew patriarchs. “Laayyediag, not 
promises (for these they had received), but blessings promised, accord- 
ing to the idiom of this epistle. What were these blessings, heavenly or 
earthly? The sequel will answer this question. 

᾿Αλλὰ πόρῥωϑεν. ο.. γῆς, but seeing them afar off, and joyfully 
anticipating them, they openly professed themselves to be strangers and 
sojourners on the carth. 'The application of this whole verse to the ex- 
pectation of the future possession of Canaan, and of a numerous pro- 
geny, would be admissible, were it not for the sequel (vs. 14—16) 
which plainly forbids such an application. In addition to the faith of 


HEBREWS ΧΙ, 13—I16. 495 


Abraham and other patriarchs, in the promises of God which had re- 
spect to temporal blessings, I understand the apostle as here asserting, 
that those ancient worthies also exercised confidence in God’s word re- 
specting the blessings of the invisible world; i.e. theirs was ὑπόστασις 
ἐλπιζομένων .... οὐ βλεπομένων. Those things which are invisible 
to the corporeal eye, they saw with the eye of faith; and seeing them, 
they hailed them with joy (ἀσπασάμενοι), welcomed them, greeted them 
or anticipated them with gladness, as we joyfully greet or anticipate the 
approach of a beloved friend or of some distinguished favour. And, 
looking forward to them as their chief source of happiness, they openly 
declared themselves to be only strangers and sojourners in the present 
world. That γῆς by itself might refer to the land of Canaan, is plain 
enough ; but that it does so refer here, is rendered quite improbable by 
the sequel. The idea is plainly more general. SlagveniOnuog means 
a temporary resident among any people, i. e. a sojourner. 

(14) Οἱ γὰρ τοιαῦτα... ἐπιζητοῦσι, now they who thus profess, 
shew that they are yet secking for a country. Tatia λέγοντες, viz. 
saying or professing that they were strangers and sojourners in the 
earth. «Παιρίδα, a fixed or permanent place of residence, i.q. πόλεν 
μένουσαν, 13:14, or πόλιν ϑεμελίους ἔχουσαν in v.10 above. That 
this πατρίς was not of an earthly nature, the writer proceeds to shew. 

(15) Kal εἰ μὲν ἐκείνης... ἀνακάμψαι, for had they cherished the 
memory of that [country] from which they came, they had opportuni- 
ty of returning [thither]. That is, if their native country on earth 
(πατρίς), had been an object of affectionate desire, they might have 
easily returned thither and dwelt there. But this they did not; for, 

(16) Nov δὲ ὀρέγονται... . ἐπουρανίου, but now they were desirous 
of a better [country], that is, of a heavenly one. Νῦν, i.e. while they 
were strangers and sojourners, during the time then present. ‘The ex- 
planation of the writer, in respect to the country which the patriarchs 
sought, is so plain, that nothing can add to its perspicuity. 

Avo οὐκ ἐπαισχύνεταν... .. πόλεν, wherefore God is not ashamed of 
them, [nor] to be called their God ; for he hath prepared a city for 
them. v0, wherefore, viz. because of the faith which they reposed in 
the promises of God respecting future happiness, or in regard to a πόλεν 
ἐπουράνιον or μένουσαν. To be their God means, to be their protec- 
tor, rewarder, benefactor; comp. Rom. 3:29. Rev. 21:3, 7. Ex. 3: 
6. Zech.8:8. Gen. 15:1. “Hroiwace γὰρ avrvig addy, ie. he will 
reward them, for he has in fact prepared a πόλεν [sc. ἐπουράνιον] for 


400 HEBREWS ΧΙ. 17, 18. 


elie By αἰπρδίθ, οὐχ ἐπαισχύνεταν is omitted before ϑεὺς Zante εῖσ- 
θαι αὐτῶν. 

(17)“Πίστει προσενήνοχεν .... πειραζόμενος, by faith Abraham, 
when tried, made an offering of Isaac. Tlooosvnvoys, made an offer- 
ing of ; for the act on the part of Abraham was essentially done, when 
he had fully resolved to do it, and was proceeding to the complete exe- 
cution of it, Gen. 22: 1—10. Tevgucuevog (like the Hebrew 722) 
means, either to put to trial, or to tempt, i.e. solicit to sin. Which of 
these senses the word must bear in any particular passage, depends on 
the character of the agent who occasions the trial or temptation, and 
bi objects which he has in view. Beyond all question, “02 in Gen. 

: L and πειραζόμενος in our verse, are to be understoed in “the sense 
of ae for God is the agent, and ‘‘ he tempts no man,” i.e. solicits 
none to sin, James 1: 13. 

Ααὶ tov movoyery .... ἀναδεξάμενος, yea, he who had received the 
promises, made an offering of his only son; Gen. 22:2. ‘This clause 
is designed to augment the force of the description of Abraham’s case. 
It was not simply, that Abraham in circumstances common to others, 
i.e. surrounded by several children and without any special promises, 
made the offering in question; but Abraham did this, to whom God 
had repeatedly made promises of a numerous progeny; and it was 
Abraham’s only son, i.e. only son of promise, who was the offering 
which he stood ready to make. 

(18) Πρὸς ov .... σπέρμα, unto whom it had been said, After Isaac 
shall thy seed be named. IToo¢ ὃν, unto whom, and so very frequently ; 
e.g. Matt.3: 15. Mark 4: 41. Luke 14: 25, et al. The Hebrew in 
Gen. 21: 12, is 927 J5 NDP? Pet which means literally, thy 
seed shall be named ‘after Isaac, i. e. thy seed, viz. the seed which is 
promised to thee, must descend only from Isaac. Neither Ishmael, nor 
the sons of Abraham by Keturah, could be progenitors of the promised 
offspring, and give name to them. The Septuagint and apostle have 
rendered the Hebrew preposition 3 in ὉΠ ΠΞ, by év ; which may be 
rendered in with a good sense ; viz. in Isaac shall there be [so δὲ 7 is 
often used in Hebrew] a seed to thee. The sense may be given more 
intelligibly by another version, viz. by Isaac shall there be a seed to thee. 
This is a third circumstance added, in order to augment the impression 
of the reader respecting the faith of Abraham. This patriarch to 
whom promises had been made, not only offered up his only son born 
of Sarah his beloved wife, but his only son on whom all the promises of 
God respecting his future progeny were suspended. 


HEBREWS XI. 19. 497 


(19) Aoytonuevog Ore xal..... 0809, counting that God was able 
to raise him even from the dead; i.e. he believed, that in case Isaac 
should be actually slain and consumed as a burnt-offering, God could 
and would raise him up from the dead, so that the promise made to him 
would be fulfilled. This was indeed a signal example of the strength 
of faith, and it deserves the commendation which the apostle bestows 
upon it. 

There are not wanting, however, critics of the present time, who at- 
tribute this whole transaction of Abraham to his superstition, or to his 
heathenish views of sacrifice, or to a dream which he erroneously con- 
sidered as a divine admonition. And in regard to the interposition 
from heaven which prevented his resolution from being executed, they 
aver, that the accidental discovery of a ram, caught by the horns in a 
thicket, was interpreted by the superstitious patriarch as a divine admo- 
nition to refrain from proceeding with his design. How different all 
this is from the views of the author who wrote Gen. xxu., of Paul in 
Rom. τν., and of the writer of our epistle, need not be insisted on to 
any one, who does not make his own conceptions about the subject of 
religion and miracles, the standard by which the sacred writers are to 
be tried. ; ὶ 

Ὅϑεν αὐτὸν... ἐκομίσατο, whence, comparatively, he obtained him, 


or whence, as it were, he did obtain him. It would occupy much room 
even to glance at the variety of interpretations, which have been put 
on this somewhat difficult phrase. Instead of this, I will simply state 
those which appear to me to be the most probable. 

The first is this; viz. Paul, speaking of the procreation of Isaac in 
Rom. tv., mentions Abraham as then νενέκρωμένον, and the νέκρωσιν 
τῆς μήτρας of Sarah. In v. 12 above, the same apostle speaks of 
Abraham as vevexompevor, and his description of Sarah in v. 11 implies 
the same thing. Now as Isaac sprang from Abraham and Sarah, both 
κατὰ ταῦτα νενεκρωμένοι, What is more natural than to suppose that 
in our verse this fact is adverted to? The sentiment seems to be this: 
‘Abraham believed that God could raise Isaac from the dead, because 
he had, as it were, obtained him from the dead,’ i. e. he was born of 
those who zata ταῦτα νεχροὶ ἦσαν. Then the whole presents one 
consistent and apposite sentiment. Abraham believed God could raise 
his son from the dead. Why? He had good reason to conclude so, 
for God had already done what was equivalent to this, or like this ; 
he had done this ἐν παραβολῇ, in a comparative manner, i. 6. in a man- 
ner that would compare with raising from the dead, or which was 


498 HEBREWS XI, 19—21. 


a significant emblem of raising from the dead, when he brought about 
his birth from those who were dead as to the power of procreation. 
Tlogo3oA7 means comparison, similitude ; ἐν παραβολῇ, comparatively, 
in like manner, with similitude, as it were. It may be made a question, 
whether éxou/oaro refers to Abraham’s having obtained Isaac from the 
altar of burnt-offering, where he was as it were dead; or whether the 
word refers to Abraham’s having originally obtained him, viz. at his 
birth. It may be applied to either; but the latter application seems to 
be more significant. In this way Hammond, Whitby, Newcome, 
Schulz, and others, explain the passage. 

Another explanation is that of Calvin, Limborch, Kuinoel, Bloomfield, 
and others. It is as follows: ‘ Filium recepit quasi mortuum, 1. e. ac 81 
ex morte resuscitatum ipsi reddidisset Deus.’ ‘The text will easily bear 
this explanation ; and it agrees, on the whole, rather better with the 
verb ἐχομίσατο than the preceding one. 

(20) Πίστει περὶ μελλόντων... Hoa, by faith Isaac blessed Ja- 
cob and Esau in respect to the future. Περὶ μελλόντων εὐλόγησε, lit. 
blessed Jacob and Esauin regard to future things. 'The sentiment is: 
‘Pronounced a blessing upon Jacob and Esau, in regard to their future 
condition ;’ which accords with the facts as related in Gen. 27 : 26—40. 
It was faith in the promises of God, which enabled the dying patriarch 
to do this. 

(21) Πίστει “faxa?.... εὐλόγησε, by faith Jacob, when about to 
dic, blessed each of Joseph’s sons; see Gen. 48: 15, 106. ᾿“ποϑνήσκων 
here, like the present participle in Hebrew, has the meaning of the 
Latin future in -rus. It was not in the act of dying that Jacob blessed 
the sons of Joseph, as Gen. 48: 8—22 shews; but it was when on his 
death-bed, that both they and the twelve sons of Jacob were blessed by 
him ; see Gen. 47: 31. 48: 2. 49: 33.. 

Kat προσεκύνησεν... αὐτοῦ, and bowed himself upon the top of his 
staff. ‘This last action did not accompany the blessing of the sons of 
Joseph; at least it is not related in connection with it, but as preceding 
it. See Gen. 47: 31, comp. 48: 1, 15, 16. I regard it, therefore, asa 
separate transaction. ΤΙροσεχύνησε (Hebrew 1mmw") designates, as it 
would seem, the act of worship or reverence paid to God, and occasioned 
by the grateful emotions of the dying patriarch, on account of the prom- 
ise which his son Joseph had just made to bury him with his fathers. 
That the Hebrew 1nmw?, and the corresponding Greek προσεκύνησε, 
are sometimes employed simply and merely to designate an act of reli- 
gious worship, is plain from 2 K. 5:18. Gen. 22:5, 1 Sam. 1: 3. 


HEBREWS XL. 21. 499 


That SIU generally means worship or reverence by bowing down 
towards the earth or even to the earth, is sufficiently plain; but that, in 
some cases, it also designates worship simply as a religious act, without 
necessarily implying a particular position of body, is sufficiently plain 
from 1 K. 1: 47, where it is said of David, in extreme old age, and con- 
fined to his bed, A2Warm—by F537 INAw.1, he worshipped upon his 
bed; a phrase constructed exactly like that in Gen. 47: 31; in both of 
which cases, Gesenius says, the act of worship is signified without bow- 
ing down. This is indeed clear, from the nature of the position, and 
from the infirmities of Jacob and David. If the reader wants evidence 
of a similar meaning of ποοσκυνέω, he may consult John 4: 20—24. 
12: 20. Acts 8: 27. 24: 11, etc. 

The only question of difficulty that remains, is, whether the present 
vowel-pointing of the Hebrew, muam unr ty, upon the head of the 
bed, is probably more correct than the Septuagint mode of reading the 
Hebrew, viz. Hwa UNI bY, upon the top of his staff. I have no 
hesitation in preferring the latter punctuation ; for what is TWAT UNA, 
the head of a bed, in the oriental country, when the bed itself is nothing 
more than a piece of soft carpeting thrown down upon the floor? And 
what can be the meaning of Jacob’s bowing himself down upon the head 
of the bed? For (1) There is no evidence that Jacob was upon the bed, 
when Joseph paid him the visit recorded in Gen. 47: 28—31. It was 
after this, that Jacob was taken sick, Gen. 48: 1, and sat up on his 
bed when Joseph came to visit him, 48:2. (2) An infirm person, ly- 
ing upon a bed, if he assumed a position such as to bow himself, would 
sit on the middle of the bed, and not upon the head of it. (3) In all 
the Scriptures, the head of a bed is not once mentioned; and for a good 
reason, as the oriental bed had, strictly speaking, no head. For these 
reasons, I must regard Jacob as leaning upon the top of his staff for 
support, when he conversed with his son Joseph; than which nothing 
can be more natural for a person of very advanced years. In this posi- 
tion he was, when Joseph sware to him that he would comply with the 
request which he had made in respect to his burial. This was so grate- 
ful to his feelings, that he spontaneously offered up his thanks to God 
for such a favour, q. d. he worshipped upon the top of his staff, i. e. lean- 
ing upon the top of his staff, he offered homage or thanks to God ; just 
as David “ worshipped upon his bed,” i. 6. did homage or paid reverence 
to God while on his bed, 1 Καὶ, 1: 47. That the present vowel-points of 
the Hebrew do not, in every case, give the most probable sense of the 
original, will not appear strange to any one, who reflects that they were 


500 HEBREWS ΧΙ. 21—24. 


introduced after the fifth century of our present era. ΑἹ] enlightened 
critics of the present day disclaim the idea that they are authoritative. 

The apostle says, that by facth Jacob worshipped. I understand this 
of that confidence in God which he entertained, and which led him to 
trust that all which Joseph had promised him would be accomplished. 

(22) Πίστει /wong ... ἐνετείλατο, by faith Joseph, at the close of 
fife, made mention of the departure of the children of Israel [from 
Egypt], and gave commandment respecting his bones. See Gen. 50: 24 
—26. Josh. 24:32. Téehevtwy, see on ἀποϑνήσκων inv. 9]. ᾿Εμνη- 
povevos, made mention of, must mean a prophetic mention, as it long 
preceded the event. ‘Lverethavo, i. e. he commanded that his bones 
should be carried up out of Egypt to the land of Canaan, when the 
Israelites removed thither. It was by faith in the promises of God, that 
Joseph spoke thus confidently respecting the future exodus of the Israel- 
ites, and gave directions respecting his bones, which could be executed 
only in case this exodus took place. 

(23) Πίστει Movong.... αὐτοῦ, by faith Moses, after his birth, 
was concealed for three months by his parents ; see Ex. 2:2. What is 
attributed by our author to the parents of Moses, is there said to have 
been done by his mother. But doubtless it was with her husband’s 
knowledge and concurrence; and even if it were not, there are many 
cases in Scripture, where what is done by one of any class or company 
of men, is attributed generally to the class or company; e. g. one evan- 
gelist says, that the ¢hdeves on the cross reviled Jesus ; but another in- 
forms us, that one of them did this. That πατέρες applies to both father 
and mother, is well known, it being equivalent to our word parents. 

Avore sidov ... . βασιλέως, because they saw that he was a goodly 
child, and they did not fear the king’s commandment. °Aoreiov, Heb. 
330, goodly, fair, beautiful. Avarayyo τοῦ βασιλέως, viz. the com- 
mand of Pharaoh to destroy all the male children, Ex. 1: 16,22. It 
was faith or confidence in divine protection, which led them to perform 
such a hazardous duty. ; 

(24) Πίστει Mwiions.... Φαραώ, by faith Moses, when arrived at 
mature age, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter. Me- 
γας γενόμενος means, become full grown, become adult, having attain- 
ed the stature of aman. ᾿Πρνήσατο, refused, etc.; no express act of 
this kind is related in the sacred history; but the whole account of Mo- 
ses’ conduct shews that he had, at this period, fully resolved upon leav- 
ing the court of Pharaoh and embarking in the cause of the oppressed 
{sraelites. 


HEBREWS ΧΙ. 25—27. 561 


(25) Madhov éhousvos.... ἀπόλαυσιν, choosing rather to suffer 
affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for 
α season. Aa τοῦ ϑεοῦ, i. 6. the Israelites, to whom this name is of 
ten given. Προύσκοαίρον ἁμαρτίας ἀπολαυσιν, viz. the pleasures of 
living at the court of Pharaoh in princely magnificence. 

(26) MeiSove πλοῦτον... .. Χριστοῦ, counting reproach, like that 
which Christ suffered, as greater riches than all the treasures of Egypt. 
That ὀνειδισμὸν τοῦ Χριστοῦ has the meaning here assigned to it, 
seems quite probable, if we consider that the comparison between the 
reproach which Christ himself suffered, and the treasures of Egypt, 
would be inapposite here. The simple sentiment is, “Moses renounc- 
ed pleasures and wealth, and endured suffering and reproach, because 
he believed in the promises which God had made of future good, and 
that he would deliver his people from the bondage of Egypt. So Christ, 
“though rich, for our sakes became poor,” in order to redeem us from 
a bondage worse than that of Egypt.’ That Moses, then, counted re- 
proach like that which Christ suffered, as preferable to the pleasure 
and wealth which he might have enjoyed at the Egyptian court, is 
plainly the meaning of the writer. Compare παϑήματα Χριστοῦ, suf- 
ferings like those of Christ, in 2 Cor. 1:5. Such a use of the Geni- 
tive case is by no means unfrequent, see Luke 11 : 29. 2 Cor. 4: 10. 

᾿“πέβλεπε yao εἰς τὴν μισϑαποδοσίαν, because he had respect to the 
retribution. °AnéBlexe means to look away from present things, and 
to have respect to or look forward to future ones. The retribution of 
the invisible world is doubtless meant here, by μεσϑατιοδοσίαν; com- 
pare vs. 13—16 and v. 27. By faith in the proffered happiness of a 
future state, Moses was led to the acts of self denial here adverted to. 

(27) Πίστει κατέλιπεν... 8. βασελέω ς, by faith he kft Egypt, 
not fearing the indignation of the king. It has been disputed, wheth- 
er it was the first or second time that Moses left Egypt, to which the wri- 
ter here adverts. The first is related in Ex. τι., and was when he fled 
to Jethro in Midian. But as he fled in this case to save his life, which 
Pharaoh sought to destroy, Ex. 2: 14, 15, this cannot be the leaving 
of Egypt to which the apostle refers ; although Chrysostom, Theodoret, 
Theophylact, Oecumenius, and some of the modern critics, have un- 
derstood it to be so. It must be the occurrences related in Ex. x—x1v., 
to which our author refers ; for it was on this occasion that “he suffer- 
ed affliction with the people of God.” Toy ϑυμὸν τοὺ βασιλέως, see 
Ex. 10 : 28, 29. 

Tov yao ἀόρατον ὡς ὁρὼν ἐχαρτέρησε, for he persevered, as sceing 


64 


502 HEBREWS XL. 27—29. 


him who is invisible. ᾿Πκαρτέρησε, fortiter vel patienter duravit, if it 
relate to perseverance in a time of trial and suffering, as here. It does 
not of itself indicate endurance of suffering, but holding out, persevering, 
in any state or condition, keeping up good courage and fortitude perse- 
veringly or constantly. °Aogaror, i. 6. him whom ‘no eye hath 
seen,” viz. the invisible God; an appellation frequently given to the 
Deity ; 6. g. 1 Tim. 1: 17, comp. Rom. 1: 20. Col. 1:15, 16. In oth- 
er words, a regard to that world, which is seen only by the eye of faith, 
led Moses to quit Egypt in defiance of Pharaoh’s injunctions. 

(28) Πίστει πεποίηκε... «αὐτῶν, by faith he observed the passo- 
ver and the sprinkling of the blood, so that he who destroyed the first 
born might not touch them. Τίεποίηκε τὸ πάσχα, Hebrew nos nivys, 
which the Seventy translate ποιεῖν τὸ πάσχα. This means (as we say) 
to keep or celebrate the passover. The Hebrew m2 comes from noe, 
to pass over, to pass by. The Greek form πάσχα comes from the Ara- 
mean Hebrew word, N02, which was the Jewish method of pronoun- 
cing M2 in later times, and to which the Greek word exactly corres- 
ponds. The account of the event to which the word πάσχα relates, 
may be seen in Ex. x1.; for the etymology, see vs. 11,13. “O odo- 
ϑρεύων τὰ πρωτότοχα, see Ex. 12:12. Mi ϑίγῃ αὐτῶν, Ex. 12:13; 
αὐτῶν in the Gen. is governed by ϑέγη, as verbs of sense (touch) gov- 
ern the Genitive. 

All this was done by faith, i. 6. because Moses fully believed that 
what God had foretold would come to pass; in other words, it was 
through confidence in the divine declarations. 

(29) Πίστει διέβησαν... . ξηρᾶς, by faith they passed through the 
Red Sea, as on dry land. The Nom. to διέβησαν is of ᾿Ποραηλίται, 
which the writer leaves his readers to supply from the tenor of the nar- 
ration. Instances of the like kind are not unfrequent, both in the writ- 
ings of the Old Testament and of the New. See the history of the 
event in Ex. x1v. 

"Hg nsigav .... κατεπόϑησαν, which the Egyptians assaying to 
do, were drowned. “Hg πεῖραν λαβόντες is an expression of peculiar 
construction. *//¢ πεῖραν means the attempt of which, viz. of passing 
through the Red Sea; so that ἧς πεῖραν λαβόντες is equivalent to, ἧς 
διάβασιν πειράζοντες, attempting the passage of which. KatenoOn- 
σαν from zatanive, to swallow up, to engulf, to overwhelm, and hence 
to drown; see Ex. 14 : 27, 28. 

Tt was on account of confidence in the promise of God to bring the 
Israelites safely through the Red Sea, that they ventured to cross an 


HEBREWS ΧΙ. 90.--9], 503 


arm of it, looking to him for protection from its waters. It is not to be 
supposed, that every individual of the Israelites possessed such confi- 
dence as is here described; but their Jeaders had it, and (as in other 
cases of a similar nature) it is predicated of the nation. 

(30) Πίστει τὰ τείχη... ἡμέρας, by faith the walls of Jericho 
fell down, after they had been compassed about for seven days; see 
Josh. 6: 12—20. It was in consequence of the promise made by God 
to Joshua, that Jericho should be taken after the Israelites had march- 
ed around it for seven days in succession, that these circuits were 
performed. It was confidence then in the divine word, which led to the 
event in question. Αυκλωϑέντα, Rosenmueller, Schleusner, Dindorf, 
and others, understand to have respect to circumvallation, or a siege of 
the city by surrounding it; altogether contrary to the meaning of 
the narration in Josh. vr. For what can be the meaning of Josh. 
6: 15, on the supposition that their interpretation is correct? Did the 
Israelites lay seven sieges to it, in one day? Most evident is it, that the 
sacred writer considers the whole event of the taking of Jericho as mi- 
raculous ; and all attempts to explain it away by supposing a regular 
circumvallation, and that the city was stormed by the troops of Joshua 
on the seventh day, are glosses forced upon the Scripture by the scep- 
tical philosophy of interpreters ; not a simple explanation of the mean- 
ing of the sacred writers. 

(31) Πίστει Paap... . εἰρήνης, by faith Rakab the harlot, hav- 
ing entertained the spies in a friendly manner, perished not with the 
unbelieving. Ov συναπώλετο, i. e. was preserved, the affirmative idea 
being conveyed (as often elsewhere) by the use of a negative form of 
the expression. «ὐπεεϑησασε refers to the inhabitants of Canaan, who 
treated the claims of the Israelites to that country with contumacy, and 
disbelieved what Jehovah had said respecting them. "_Amee0¢, one who 
refuses to be persuaded, who is contumacious. The event to which this 
clause relates, is narrated in Josh. 6: 22—25. 

“Ἰεξαμένη, having entertained, received, viz. into her house. st 
εἰρήνης, with amity, in a peaceable manner; like the Hebrew D1>w , 
friendship, 6. g. Ps. 41:10. Jer. 20: 10. 38:22. Obed. 7. Ps. 28: 8, 
comp. Est. 9: 30. - 

It has been doubted whether πόρνη, the appellation given to Rahab 
here and in James 2:25, means harlot or hostess. For the latter 
Schleusner contends, in his lexicon: as do also many commentators. 
The corresponding Hebrew word is 7:37, which they say comes from 
317, pascere, alere, so that 254 may well be explained merely as one who 
furnishes others withnutriment, i.e. a hostess. But this derivation is con- 


504 HEBREWS ΧΙ. 3i—34. 


trary to the laws of etymology; for 4257 must come from 5533 , to commit 
whoredom, and not from 717 which gives no such form ; so that the whole 
argument on which this interpretation is built, falls to the ground. Be- 
sides, the wsus loguendi both of 214 and πόρνη, is against such an in- 
terpretation. 

(32) Kai τί ἔτει λέγω ; and what shall I say more? 1. 6. why should 
I recount examples any longer ? 

᾿Μκλείψει yao μὲ... προφητῶν, for time would fail me, should I 
tell of Gideon, and Barak also, and Samson, and Jephtha; of Da- 
vid too, and Samuel, and the prophets. ‘The history of these, see in 
the books of Judges and Samuel. 

(33) Οἱ διὰ aiorews.... βασιλείας, who through faith subdued 
kingdoms. That is, confidence in divine promises respecting the de- 
liverance of Israel, led them to war with and subdue the kingdoms of 
those who oppressed the Hebrew nation. 

Ligyacavro δικαιοσύνην, Hebrew PIS WF or PIS A529, practised 
justice, did that which was equitable and proper, carried the laws of jus- 
lice into executiow ; which latter seems to be the idea here. 

“Enéruyoy ἐπαγγελίας, obtained promised blessings, i.e. as the re- 
ward of their confidence in God. ‘Zaayysdiag means bere, as general- 
ly in this epistle, quod promissum est ; and refers to the various success- 
es, which at different times attended the obedient efforts and deeds of 
kings and prophets. 

ἤδφραξαν στόματα λεόντων, which probably refers to the history of 
Samson, Judg. 14: 5—9; of David, 1 Sam. 17: 84—36; and of Dan- 
iel, Dan. 6: 16—24. 

(34) "LoPeoar δύναμιν πυρὸς, they quenched the violence of fire; 
see in Dan. 3: 19—26. 

"Egvyov στόματα μαχαίρας, they escaped the edge of the sword. 
Sropare μαχαίρας, Hebrew 247772 The expression is frequent in 
Hebrew, and the equivalent one στόμα μαχαίρας, is several times used 
in the New Testament. The phrase is of a general nature, and is 
therefore applicable to many cases in the Old Testament, where escape 
from imminent danger is related. 

’Evedvvapodnoarv ἀπὸ ἀσϑενείας, were restored to vigour from a 
state of infirmity. °Ao0€vece refers to the infirmity occasioned by 
sickness or disease ; not to the weakness of one army compared with 
another, or of one man compared with another. The case of Samson, 
then, in Judg. 15: 15, 19. 16: 19 seq.,to which Dr. Schulz refers us, 


HEBREWS ΧΙ. 34, 95. 505 


seems not to be such as the writer had in view; but rather such a case 
as that of Hezekiah, 2 K. xx. 

"EyevyPnoav ἰσχυροὶ ἐν πολέμῳ, become mighty in war. Cases of 
this nature, the books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, and Chroni- 
cles, supply in abundance. 

Παρεμβολὰς ἔκλιναν ἀλλοτρίων, overthrew the armies of foreigners. 
Many cases of this nature are presented in the same books. Πῖ|αρεμ- 
βολὰς means, camps, encampments ; hence, the persons who live in them, 
i.e. armies. “Addoroimy, DZ, DT, i.e. strangers to the Hebrews 
and to the worship of the true God ; hence, forcigners, heathen. 

(95) Liafov .... νεκροὺς αὐτῶν, women recovered their dead, by a 
resurrection. “E ἀναστάσεως designates restoration to life from a 
state of death, a renewed subsistence or existence, a resurrection ; which 
corresponds with facts as related in Scripture; e.g. 2K. 4: 18—37. 
1K. 17: 17—24. Τοὺς νεχροὺς αὐτῶν, viz. their dead children; 
which is implied by αὐτῶν, their own. 

"Adhow δὲ ἐτυμπανίσϑησαν, some were tortured and beaten. Τυμ- 
πανίζω, to tympanize, means to stretch upon an instrument called 
τύμπανον, (the shape of which is not certainly known at present, but 
most probably it was of a circular form), for the sake of giving the body 
an attitude of peculiar exposure to the power of cudgels or rods. It in- 
volves the idea of scourging or beating in this peculiar way; i. e. tor- 
ture by stretching upon the τύμπανον, and beating, were conjoined at 
the same time. 

Ov moocdetauevoe.... τύχωσιν, not accepting liberation, in order 
that they might obtain a better resurrection. That is, they declined 
accepting liberation from their torments on condition of renouncing 
their religion; and they thus declined, in order that they might attain 
to a better resurrection. ‘They looked to a resurrection of the body, 
which was of a higher nature than merely the redeeming it for a while 
from temporal death; and in view of this, they refused to accept of 
liberation from their torments on the condition prescribed. They per- 
severed, because their faith enabled them to regard as a certainty the 
future and glorious resurrection of the just. 

Kosizrovos ἀναστάσεως, better resurrection. Better than what? 
Plainly, better than that which had just been mentioned, viz. resurrec- 
tion to life in the present world merely; as in the examples of the chil- 
dren mentioned in 1 K. xvir. and 2 K.1v. It was not the hope of such 
a resurrection—the hope of merely regaining the present life and being 
again subject to death as before—which Jed the martyrs suffering upon 


506 neBrews XI. 90, 37. 


the τύμπανον, to refuse liberation. It was the hope of a resurrection to 
a life of immortal happiness and glory, that led them to refuse libera- 
tion. 

(36) ἔδτεροι δὲ... ἔλαβον, others were tried by mockings and 
scourges, lit. others were put to the trial of mockings and scourges. 
‘Funceyuoyv refers to scorn, derision, and buffeting, which the victims 
of persecution experienced. M/aov/ywy designates a method of scourg- 
ing, different from that practised by the use of the τύμπανον; see 2 
Mace. 7: 1.2 Κα. 2:23. 1K. 22:24. 

"Ere δὲ δεσμῶν καὶ φυλακῆς, and also by bonds and imprisonment ; 
see’ 1K. 22:27. Jer. xx. 

(37) ᾿δλιϑάσϑησαν.. ... ἀπέϑανον, they were stoned, they were 
sawn asunder, they were tempted, they perished by the murderous sword. 
The instances of suffering and death, mentioned in this verse, are not 
distinctly recorded in the Old Testament; but were doubtless all of 
them realities, and often repeated under the terrible persecution of 
Antiochus Epiphanes, and perhaps of Manasseh and others. ‘The Jews 
have had a tradition, from time immemorial, that Isaiah was sawn asun- 
der by the command of Manasseh. 

The word ἐπειράσϑησαν has been a stumbling block to the great 
body of critics, both in ancient and modern times. The difficulty lies 
in the fact, that a word of a mere generic signification, and of a milder 
aspect, should be inserted in the midst of such as designate spect- 
fic sufferings, and those of a high degree. Accordingly it has been 
proposed to read ἐπυράσϑησαν, ἐπηρύϑησαν, ἐπρήσϑησαν, ἐπάρϑης- 
σαν, ἐπυρώϑησαν, ἐπράϑησαν, ἐσπειράσϑησαν, ἐσφαιρίσϑησαν, ἐπη- 
ρεάσϑησαν, ἐταριχεύθϑησαν, or ἐπειράϑησαν ; all of which are without 
any authority, while ἐπεεράσϑησαν is well supported. In such a case, 
moreover, conjecture is out of question, so long as the established read- 
ing will make any tolerable sense. In respect to the contested word 
ἐπειράσϑησαν, it seems to me that the great body of critics have over- 
looked a very obvious and intensive meaning of it, viz. that of tempta- 
tion to do evil; which in the case presented by v. 37 here, must mean, 
‘temptations presented by persecutors to the victims of their torture, in 
order to induce them to forsake their religion and worship the gods of 
idolaters.’ Such was a common practice among the heathen persecu- 
tors of Christians. Not only life but wealth and honour were frequent- 
ly proffered, in the midst of torture most agonizing to the human frame, 
in order to tempt the martyrs to forsake their religion. Such a tempta- 
tion as this, is by no means to be reckoned, under such circumstances, 


HEBREWS ΧΙ. 37—40. 507 


among the lighter trials of good men; and to such an one it is plain 
our text may refer. Is it not probable that it has such a reference? 
Compare the latter part of v. 85. If so, this locus vexatissimus may be 
permitted to rest in quiet, not only as being supported by good authori- 
ty, but as altogether significant and entirely consonant with the writer’s 
purpose. 

Περιῆλϑον ἐν... . κακουχούμενοι, they went about in sheep-skins 
and goat skins, in want, afflicted, inguriously treated. That is, driven 
out from the society of men, they were obliged to clothe themselves 
with the skins of animals; to undergo all the wants and distresses to 
which such a condition reduced them; and to submit to the injuries 
which were heaped upon them by their persecutors. 

(38) Ὧν οὐκ ἣν ἄξιος 6 κόσμος, of whom the world was not worthy, 
i.e. with whom the world could not bear a comparison in respect to 
worth ; in other words, ‘ who were of a character elevated far above that 
of the rest of the world.’ This is a proverbial expression, and plainly is 
to be included here in a parenthesis, as it is an ejaculation of the writer, 
interrupting the regular series of the discourse. 

"Ev ἐρημίαις .... γῆς, wandering about in descrts and mountains, 
in caves also and dens of the earth. A further description of persons 
banished from society, and wandering hither and thither in order to 
find the means of subsistence, or to avoid the rage of persecution. 
Saniaiovg and οὁπαῖς include fissures of the rocks and holes in the 
earth ; both of which were resorted to by these outcasts, for a shelter, 
when one was needed. 

(39) Kal οὗτοι πάντες... . ἐπαγγελίαν, all these, morcover, who are 
commended on account of faith, obtained not the promised blessing. 
That is, they lived in expectation of some future good, of some promised 
blessing. They habitually, by faith, looked forward to something 
which they did not attain in the present life. “αρτυρηϑέντες, com- 
mended ; as often before in this epistle. 

(40) Tov ϑεοῦ megi.... τελειωϑῦσι, God having provided some 
better thing for us, so that without us they could not fuily obtain what 
was needed. An exceedingly diflicult verse, about the meaning of 
which there have been a multitude of conjectures. The only ones that 
deserve particular regard are, that the xgerzzov te refers to the Mes- 
siah ; or, that it refers to the happiness of the heavenly world. In the 
latter sense, some very respectable interpreters take it. But how is 
heavenly blessedness vouchsafed to later more than to ancient saints ? 
And in what sense can it be affirmed, that the ancients could not, or 


508 HEBREWS XI. 40. 


did not, attain it without us?’ The object of the writer, through the 
chapter, has been to shew that the hopes of heaven, cherished by the 
ancient worthies, were firm and bright through faith in the word of God. 
That they did at last actually attain the object of their hopes, surely 
will not be doubted. The “better things reserved for Christians,” 
then, is not a reward in heaven; for such a reward was proffered also 
to the ancient saints. 

I must therefore adopt another exegesis of the whole passage, which 
refers ἐπαγγελίαν to the promised blessing of the Messiah; see Gen. 
12: 1—3. 17: 1—8. I construe the whole passage, then, in this man- 
ner. ‘The ancient worthies persevered in their faith, although the 
Messiah was known to them only by promise. We are under greater 
obligations than they to persevere ; for God has fulfilled his promise 
respecting the Messiah, and thus placed us in a condition better adapted 
to perseverance than theirs. So much is our condition preferable to 
theirs, that we may even say, ‘ Without the blessing which we enjoy, 
their happiness could not be completed.’ In other words: The coming 
of the Messiah was essential to the consummation of their happiness in 
glory, i.e. was necessary to their τελείωσις. 

In 9: 15 (comp. 9: 26 and Rom. 3: 25, 26), the death of Christ is 
represented as having a retrospective influence upon past ages. The 
happiness then of the ancient worthies, is connected with Christ’s com- 
ing and atonement. And to these the writer seems to me fo advert, 
when he says μὴ χωρὶς ἡμῶν τελεεωϑῶσι, i. 6. without what has taken 
place in our days, their happiness could not be perfected, great and 
good as they were. If this be not his meaning, I am unable to discover 
it. And this meaning is altogether apposite to his purpose; for, as he 
had shewn that faith was the means by which the ancient worthies 
persevered and obtained happiness even before the coming of the Mes- 
siah, he might well argue, that since his coming there were more power- 
ful motives to persevere in the faith which he had been commending. 
If the ancients did so, whose happiness was connected with something 
then future, and which was to happen only in later days; then surely 
Christians ought now to persevere, who have actually witnessed the per- 
formance of promised good for which the ancients only hoped. The 
κρεῖττον τὸ then seems to be, ‘the actual fulfilment of the promise re- 
specting the Messiah ;’ in respect to which later times certainly have a 
pre-eminence over the early ones, and on which the expected happiness 
of early times was really dependent. 


HEBREWS XII. 1. 509 


Having thus set before his readers the illustrious examples of ancient times, in respect to faith 
and persevering steadfastness, the writer now proceeds to represent those worthies as gathered 
around his readers in order to witness the manner and the event of the contest in which they were 
engaged, ν. 1. Above all he exhorts them to look to the example of Jesus, who had subjected himself 
to the like trials, and had obtained a glorious reward, vs. 2, 3. He tells them, in order to animate 
them in their struggle, that they have not yet been called to trials of the greatest severity, v. 4; 
and that they must consider, that their heavenly Father designs all their sufferings and trials for 
their good. They should receive chastisement, then, as adapted to promote this good; and there- 
fore, with a willing and submissive spirit, vs.5—11. On this account they should cheer their 
hearts, and mutually assist and encourage each other, vs. 12, 13. They should be very cautious in 
respect to all defection from faith and zeal, lest, in case they remit their watchful efforts, they 
should be left at last like rash and thoughtless Esau, to deplore the errors they had committed, 
when it was beyond their power to retrieve them, vs. 14—17._ They have not come under a dispen- 
sation full of awe and threatening, like the law given at Sinai, but under one which proffers all 
that is attractive and encouraging, vs. 19—24. So much the more grievous and criminal will be 


5) 
their apostasy, in case they should renounce Christianity, vs. 25, 26. This change of dispensations, 


and the introduction of a permanent one, was predicted even among the very threatenings of the 
ancient one; so that there is now abundant evidence of the stability of the new dispensation, 
and those who neglect it will incur the most signal and exemplary punishment, vs. 27—29. 


CHAP. XII. 


(1) Τοιγαροῦν καὶ... μαρτύρων, since now we are encompassed by 
so great a multitude of witnesses ; i.e. by so great a multitude of spec- 
tators. An allusion, as the sequel shews, is here made to the stadium 
of the Greeks and Romans, where the persons stood who were to en- 
gage in the exercises of their public games, surrounded by great multi- 
tudes of spectators. In a condition resembling this, the writer now 
places the Hebrew Christians whom he is addressing, and surrounds 
them with the multitude of worthies and martyrs, to whom he had been 
alluding in the preceding chapter. NVéeqog is figuratively used for mul- 
titude. So the heathen writers also; 6. σ. Virg. Aen. VIL. 793, nimbus 
peditum. Liv. XX XV. 49, peditum equitumque nimbus. Herod. VIIT. 
105, νέφος τοσοῦτο ἀνθρώπων. Eurip. Phoeniss. 1821, νέφος node 
piv. Hee. 907, rocovde “Hiinvwy νέφος, where the Scholiast ex- 
plains νέφος by πλῆϑος. Aristoph. Avib. στρουϑιῶν νέφος. Hom. 
Iu. y. 133, νέφος πεζῶν. Diod. Sic. III. 28, νεφέλη [i. gq. νέφος] axor- 
dwv; comp. Sept. Ezek. 39: 9. Is. 60:8. 

The writer proceeds to exhort the combatants to prepare for the con- 
test before them. "Oyxoy ἀποϑέμενοι πάντα, laying aside every in- 
cumbrance. “Oyzos means swelling, tumour, pride; also weight, weight- 
iness. The reference here is to those who ran in the stadium, and who 
laid aside all superfluous clothing and disencumbered themselves of 
every thing which could impede their progress. The simple word, 


65 


δι0 neBprews XII. 1. 


weight, would not be of sufficient latitude to convey all which ὄγκος 
means in the passage before us. Every impediment or hindrance is to 
be laid aside, or every tncumbrance is to be avoided. 

Kai τὴν εὐπερίστατον ἁμαρτίαν, especially the sin which easily be- 
sets us. Kui before the phrase τὴν εὐπερίστατον ἁμαρτίαν, is explica- 
tive, and is equivalent, in such a connection, to the English words spe- 
cially or in particular. 7 ὐπερίστατον is a ἅπαξ λεγόμενον, the mean- 
ing of which has been variously explained. In its composition, it is 
analogical with εὐπερίγραφος, εὐπερίπατος, evnegizuros, etc. Περι- 
vornue means to stand round, surround. Hence Chrysostom explains 
εὐπερίστατον by ἡ εὐκόλως περιϊσταμένη ἡμᾶς, which easily comes or 
stands around us. And thus many modern interpreters understand 
the word; which, on the whole, gives an apposite sense. The ἁμαρτία 
which most easily beset the Hebrews, was undoubtedly apostasy or de- 
fection from their Christian profession ; against which the whole epistle 
is directed. They were under peculiar temptations to this sin, in con- 
sequence of the persecutions which they endured, and of their former 
prejudices in favour of Judaism. 

But other critics, ancient and modern, explain εὐπερίστατον in a 
somewhat different manner. IJieg/oraovs, among other things, denotes, 
as Hesychius affirms, ϑλέψες, ἀνάγκη, μέριμνα. Hence Theodoret 
explains εὐπερίστατον, by Ov ἣν εὐχόλως τις εἷς περεστάσεις ἐμπίπτει, 
by which one easily falls into troubles or afflictions. That is: ‘Lay 
aside the sin, which will easily bring you into a state of punishment or 
distress.’ So some of the modern critics also explain the word ; espe- 
cially as the Greek ἀπερίστατον means not dangerous, free from vexa- 
tion. Hence, they conclude, εὐπερίστατον must mean the opposite 
of this, viz. full of danger or trouble; <v being intensive, as in evmeye- 
Ons, εὐμήκης, etc. This seems to be a good sense, and pretty well 
supported by analogy. 

Others, Ernesti, Doederlein, et al., prefer to render evmegioratog by 
quod patronos habet, quod homines favent ; i. 6. εὐπερίστατον means, 
according to them, well surrounded, viz. by applauding multitudes. But 
the preceding senses are better supported than this, by analogy. Kui- 
noel says that περίστασις sometimes means impediment, and so he ren- 
ders εὐπερίστατον here by quod cummazime cursum impedit. But the 
passage from Max. Tyrius, which he adduces to support this, is not de- 
cisive. I find nothing to support this exegesis in Passow’s lexicon. 
Besides, the sense thus constituted would be thus: ‘ Lay aside every 


nEeBREWs XII. 1, 2. 511 


impediment, @nd particularly special impediments ;’ a possible sense in- 
deed, but hardly a probable one. 

At ὑπομενῆς.... ἀγώνα, let us run with perseverance the race set 
before us. ᾿Ὑπομιενῆς refers, here, not so much to enduring patiently 

evils which might befal them, as to holding out in the race, persevering 
in their efforts until it was completed and the reward secured. “γῶν 
means any kind of contest, any gymnastic exercise which was a trial of 
skill or in which there was a competition. Here, plainly, it is limited 
to designate a race by the accompanying τρέχωμεν. ITooxscuae is 
employed by the classical writers in the same way as here, viz. to de- 
signate the proposal of this or that ἀγὼν to the ἀγωνίσταε. 

The simple meaning of the whole verse, divested of metaphor, is: 
‘Since so many illustrious patriarchs, prophets, and martyrs, who pre- 
ceded us, have exercised faith, persevered in it, and obtained the re- 
wards consequent upon it, let us, in like manner, rejecting every solici- 
tation to renounce our hopes and our holy religion, persevere in the be- 
lief and in the duties which the gospel requires.’ 

(2) That they may be excited to do this, he now refers them to the 
example of Christ himself. ᾿αἰφορῶντες εἰς tov... /moour, looking 
to Jesus the author and perfecter of our faith. °Agynyov, author, lead- 
er, or pattern, ecample; here it means, ‘Jesus who introduced the new 
religion or the Christian faith, who first taught it and led the way in 
it; seeon2: 10. 7ελειωτήν, he who completed the system of faith or 
religion which he had introduced. So it is commonly explained. But 
there is another view of the term here which seems to be more proba- 
ble. This is, that it here signifies the same as βραβέυτής, i. 6. the dis- 
tributor of the prize. This meaning would be quite analogical, when 
traced from the meaning that rédecow and τέλειος sometimes have. 
The βραβευτὴς was commonly a person who had himself been a victor 
in the games. Hence ἀρχηγός would here mean, one who was by his 
own example a leader, and τελεεωτης he who now distributed the prize. 
Hence we may render aoynyor καὶ redevmrny, the pattern and reward- 
er. In this way the figure which the writer had begun, is carried 
through. 

That πίστες often signifies the Christian faith or religion, hardly 
needs to be mentioned. 

“Os ἀντὶ τῆς... χαρᾶς, who, on account of the joy that was set be- 
fore him. This χαρὰ προχειμένη, was exaltation to the right hand of 
God in the world above, and the glorious reign which was to follow ; as 
the last part of the verse shews. The joy that was set before him, was 


512 HEBREWS AIT. 2—4. 


given him when he had finished his course. In προχειμέἕνη there is an 
allusion again to the method of proposing the prizes at the public games. 

“γπέμεινε otavgov .... κεχαϑηκὲ, endured the cross, disregarding 
ignominy, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. | 
"Ev δεξιῷ τε χ. τ. 2, see on 1:3. «Ἵἰσχυνὴ means the shame which 
others might heap upon him, i. e. ¢gnominy, disgrace, or the ignomini- 
ous punishment of the cross. 

Sentiment : ‘Do as Christ the author of our holy religion did. For 
the heavenly reward proposed, he with patience and perseverance en- 
dured every kind of indignity and suffering, and has, in consequence of 
it, received a glorious reward. Follow in his steps, and participate in 
his glory.’ 

(3) ᾿᾿““ναλογίσασϑε.. .. . ἀντιλογίαν, consider him, now, who endured 
such opposition against himself from sinners. °Avodoyiono%e means 
reflect on his example, take his case into consideration. ᾿“μαρτωλῶν 
refers here to the persecuting Jews of the Saviour’s time, who thus evil 
entreated Jesus. “4vrihoyiay, 299, 2972 , opposition, rebellion, con- 
test against, contumely. Contradiction is a term too soft to reach the 
full meaning. 

“Iva μὴ χάμητε. ... ἐχλυόμενοι, lest becoming discouraged in your 
mind ye grow weary. χλύομαιν means to become discouraged or des- 
pondent. 1 join the participle ἐκλυόμενοι with ταῖς wuzars. So Wahl, 
on ἐχλύομαι; and so Kuinoel. The verb ἐχλύω has the same signifi- 
cation, if the noun be omitted ; 6. g. v. 5. 

Keurw means to become wearied, to be tired out. The first step to- 
ward forsaking the Christian course, is to become disheartened in the 
pursuit of it. Next follows weariness in pursuing that, from which we 
de not hope or expect any certain good. This leads of course to an 
abandonment of the pursuit. The reader will not fail to note, that in the 
choice of the word χάμητε, the writer still alludes to the contest in the 
games; for it is a word ὃ palacstra. 

(4) Οὔπω μέχρις... ἀνταγονιζόμενοι, ye have not resisted unto 
blood in your contest against sin. We must not understand the phrase, 
ye have not resisted unto blood, to represent the Hebrew Christians as 
making, or preparing to make, active and hostile resistance to their ag- 
gressors or persecutors. This is not the meaning of the writer. It was 
iguratively a contest, in which the Hebrews were engaged; just as in 
vs, 1—3, he had represented it as a race, ἀγών. Tt was a contest with 
trial, temptation, affliction; the result of being persecuted by the ene- 
mies of the Christian religion. But the struggle had not yet proceeded 


HEBREWS XII. 4.—6. 513 


so far that they were called to martyrdom, as others in ancient times 
had been. Many vexations had been suffered by them; but the shed- 
ding of their blood had not yet commenced. This could hardly be 
, said, indeed, in respect to the churches at Jerusalem ; at least not with- 
out limitation; for there James and Stephen had actually suffered mar- 
tyrdom, and others had been severely treated. Still, it might be said of 
the generation of Christians then living in that place. 

Πρὸς τὴν ἁμαρτίαν, a controverted phrase. I understand it (sim- 
ply in accordance with the nature of the context) as an abstract noun 
put for a concrete, i. 6. ἁμαρτία for ἁμαρτωλούς ; a usus loquendi very 
common in both the old and the New Testaments. ἡ μαρτίαν, if ex- 
plained thus, means persecutors, viz. those who inflicted injuries upon 
the Hebrew Christians; and probably these were their own country- 
men or nation, i. e. the Jews. Why Dr. Bloomfield should call such a 
method of exegesis “ arbitrary and unauthorized” I do not see. [5 it 
then a new thing in exegesis, that abstract is put for concrete? And 
even if there be ἃ prosopopoeia here of ἁμαρτία, as Kuinoel and 
Boehme assume, the sense comes after all to the same point. Nothing 
more is won. Carpzoff, Bolten, Heinrichs, and others, have construed 
it as I have done above. ; 

(5) Kai ἐκλέλησϑε.. ... διαλέγεται, and have ye forgotten the ex- 
hortation, which is addressed to you as to children? Most interpreters 
render zai ἐχλέλησϑε without interrogation, and ye have forgotten, ye 
must needs have forgotten, etc. It seems to me more congruous with 
the apostle’s manner of address in this hortatory part of his epistle, to 
render it (as Ernesti has done) interrogatively. It loses nothing of its 
force, and gains in respect to the manner of address. 

Ὑἱέ mov... . ἐλεγχόμενος, my son, do not slight the chastening of 
the Lord, nor be disheartened when reproved by him. ᾿Ολιγώρει (He- 
brew ON), contemn, slight, despise, disregard. Παιδείας, in the 
sense of the Hebrew 5172 , chastening, rebuke. Classic usage employs 
παιδεία in the sense of instruction, discipline, ᾿Παλύου, Hebrew aris 
from Vip , fastidire and also metuere, 1. e. μὴ ἐχλύου, be not timid, be 
not disheartened, viz. as to going forward in your Christian course ; for- 
sake it not, because you experience trouble in pursuing it. The quota- 
tion is from Prov. 3: 11, 12, and in the words of the Septuagint. 

(6) “Ov yao ayana.... προσδέχεται, for whom the Lord loveth he 
chasleneth, and scourgeth every son whem he receiveth. Maoreyot δὲ 
χ. τ΄ 4. is after the words of the Septuagint, Prov.3: 12. The Hebrew, 
as now read, gives a somewhat different meaning. It is thus, 3835 


514 HEBREWS XII. 6—9. 


MEI TBM, and as a father [chastens] the son whom he loves. The 
Seventy appear to have read 2821, participle of 282; or else AN>D in 
Piel; or perhaps 2°85> in Hiphil. No example of a ¢ransitive sense of 
aN> in Kal, is to be found ; it means only to be afflicted, to feel pain. 
Of the Piel form of this verb no instance is found in the Hebrew Scrip- * 
tures; but the use of the Hiphilis common. In whatever way they 
read the Hebrew in order to make their version, as the version now is, 
and as the apostle has quoted it, it preserves the spirit, though not the 
letter, of the present Hebrew; or rather, we may say that it gives a 
preferable reading of it. That quotations are often made by the New 
Testament writers from the Old Testament, in a general way, ad sen- 
sum and not ad literam, I have had frequent occasion to remark before, 
in commenting on our epistle. No one who attentively studies the 
New Testament, can doubt this. 

(7) Hi παιδείαν. ... ὁ 080g, if ye endure chastisement, God deal- 
eth with you as children. ᾿Ὑπομένετε has the sense here of enduring, 
undergoing, suffering ; and not that of supporting, bearing up under, 
persevering. Ποοσᾳέρεται (mid. voice) means tractare aliquem. So 
the classical writers also employ it. See. Schneider and Schleusner on 
the word. 

Tis γὰρ ἔστιν..... πατήρ: for what son is there, whom his father does 
not chasten? 'That is: How can ye expect, although ye are children, 
not to receive any chastisement ? 

(8) Li δὲ χωρίς gore... . οἷοί, but if ye are without chastisement, 
(of which all children are made partakers), then are ye spurious and 
not [legitimate] children. Nodov means, illegitimate children. Yio, 
which is here the antithesis, of course means legitimate offspring. The 
meaning is: ‘If ye are not dealt with as all legitimate children are, it 
would follow that ye are considered as not belonging to them.’ That 
is, if ye receive no chastening, then God does not acknowledge you as 
his spiritual children. 

The design of the writer, in thus applying this text of Scripture, is 
plain. He means to tell the Hebrews, that so far from being disheart- 
ened by their trials and afflictions, on account of their Christian pro- 
fession, they ought to regard it as matter of encouragement, and as 
an evidence that God is acknowledging by these their filial relation to 
him. 

(9) Eira τοὺς pév.... ἐνετρεπόμεϑα, furthermore, we have had 
fathers of our flesh who have chastised us, and we have yielded them 
reverence. ‘Tg σαρκὸς ἡμῶν πατέρας, fathers of aur flesh, i. 6. of our 


HEBREWS ΧΙ]. 9—11. 515 


natural bodies. The idea is, ‘ fathers of our physical nature,’ in dis- 
tinction from our spiritual one. 

Ov πολλῶ μᾶλλον... ζήσομεν; shall we not much rather yield sub- 
jection to the Father of [our] spirits, that we may live? That is, 
’ when God chastens us for our good, in order that he may promote our 
final happiness, when he has so important an end in view, shall we not 
bow to his will with cheerful subjection? Πατρὶ τῶν πνευμάτων, an 
antithesis of τῆς σαρκὸς ἡμῶν πατέρας, and therefore plainly ἡμῶν is 
implied after πνευμάτων. Num. 16: 22, wa ἘΞ ninaan wide, 
the God of the spirits of all flesh, is a parallel expression ; comp. also 
Zech. 12:1. Ζήσομεν has the sense here, as often elsewhere, of be- 
ing happy; like the Latin vivere, in dum vivimus vivamus. I do not 
suppose that the apostle designs here to express his philosophical views 
respecting the metaphysical origin of the soul or of the body; but that 
he uses the terms father of our flesh and father of spirits in a popular 
way, to denote our natural parents and our spiritual Father. But that 
God is called the Father of spirits because he takes care of our minds 
or spirits, providing for them, etc., (so Kuinoel), isas 1 apprehend, quite 
aside from the original meaning of this phrase. 

(10) Οἱ μὲν yoo... . énaidevor, for they chastened us a little while, 
according to their own pleasure. Vhe yog here introduces a reason why 
we should submit to God when he chastises. Πρὸς odiyas ἡμέρας, i.e. 
during our childhood, our minority ; which seems to me a much more 
natural sense than to say, with Heinrichs and Dindorf, “the fruit of 
their chastisement was only temporary.” Δατὰὼ τὸ δοχοῦν αὐτοῖς, ac- 
cording to their own pleasure, intimates that they sometimes erred in 
their chastisement, or that it was sometimes arbetrary ; but it is not so 
with that which God inflicts. 

“O δὲ ἐπὶ τὸ συμφέρον .... αὐτοῦ, but he, for our good, in order 
that we might be made partakers of his holiness. That is, God never 
chastises arbitrarily, but always to promote the real good of his chil- 
dren, to make them more holy, and so more like himself. Comp.2 Pet. 
1:4. Lev. 11: 44. 19:2. 20: 7,26. 

(11) Πᾶσα δὲ madsia.... λύπης, now all chastisement, for the 
present, seemeth not to be matter of joy but of grief. Πρὸς μὲν τὸ 
παρόν, during the present, i.e. while it continues. 77ἐν here corre- 
sponds to δὲ after ὕστερον in the next clause, i. 6. there is a protasis and 
an apodosis. 

“Yoregor 02... . δικαιοσύνης, but afterwards, it yields the happy 
fruit of righteousness to those who are exercised thereby. Kagnov 


516 HEBREWS XII. 11—13. 


εἰρηνικὸν is a peculiar expression. Some resemblance to it may be 
found in James 3:18. Is. 32:17. Gen. 37:4. The meaning of 
εἰρηνικὸν is to be gathered by a comparison of it with the Hebrew 
nibs, which means good, happiness, welfare. Eionvixos, then, is that 
which bestows happiness or produces it. This corresponds with the 
writer’s design; who means to say, that afflictions rightly improved 
will be productive of fruit that will confer happiness, such fruit as 
righteousness always produces. So remote a position of δικαιοσύνης 
from χαρπὸν, seems to indicate almost the necessity of repeating this 
word before it. 

(12) Avo τὰς megemevas.... ἀνορϑώσατε, wherefore strengthen 
the weak hands and the feeble knees. *Avoo0woare is often employed 
by the Seventy in order to translate the Hebrew 723, which means to 
establish, to make firm, to strengthen. ἸῈαρειμένας (from παρίημι) 
means relaxed, let down; consequently, weak, enfeebled. One might 
(as many interpreters have done) translate avogdwoars παρειμένας 
χεῖρας, by lift up the hands that hang down. But since the same verb 
applies to παραλελυμένα γόνατα, it is better so to render it as to make 
the application to both congruous; which may be done without trans- 
gressing Hellenistic usage. The quotation is from Is. 35: 3, where the 
Septuagint has ἐσχύσατε instead of ἀνορϑώσατε. 

The meaning of the verse is: ‘Since all your afflictions are dispensed 
by fatherly kindness, be of good courage, do not indulge any despon- 
dency, but persevere in the course which you have begun.’ 

(13) Kai τροχιὰς ὁρϑὰς... . . ὑμῶν, and make plain the paths for 
your feet. In Hebrew, F247 
of thy feet; Septuagint ogdas 
If the apostle has quoted here, it is ad sensum not ad verbum. The 
meaning is: ‘Remove all obstacles, or disregard all obstacles, to your 
progress in the Christian course.’ 

"la μὴ τὸ ywhor .... μᾶλλον, that what is lame may not be sprain- 
ed, but rather be healed. To χωλὸν is a neuter adjective, used for the 
abstract noun lameness, and therefore of a generic signification, de- 
signating that which is lame or the members which are lamed. ° Extoann 
means to turn aside; which, applied to the lame, means to dislocate, 
distort, sprain, wrench, the limbs which are lamed. °/a01 δὲ μάλλον, 
i. 6. it is better to make the paths smooth and plain, so that those who 
are lamed may walk with ease and safety, than to let them be rough and 
uneven, so as to endanger an increase of their malady. The whole is 
a figurative expression, used by our author to convey the idea, that to 


ΣῈ 05, make even or level the path 


Ba 
τροχιὰς ποίει σοῖς ποσί, Prov. 4: 26. 


HEBREWS XII. 14, 15. 517 


go Finaiahie forward in ΜΝ Christian course, teil rds av any — 
tions to which this may subject them, is the only way of safety for those 
who are in danger of halting. 

(14) δίρηνην διώχετε, ον ἀγεασμὸν, studiously cultivate peace 
with allmen, and holiness. {εἰρήνην means here a state of concord 
and amity, the opposite of contention and broils. To contentions the 
Hebrew Christians must have been much exposed at this time, in con- 
sequence of the frequent injuries inflicted upon them by their persecu- 
tors. Avaxers, pursue with zeal or engagedness. ‘_dytoopor, holiness, 
1. 6. a pious upright life, or a life of consecration to God. 

Οὗ χωρὶς... κύριον, without which no one shall see the Lord. 
Ὄπτεσϑαι τὸν κύριον, to see the Lord, denotes to come before him, to 
enjoy his presence, to be admitted to his favour. Comp. Matt. 5:8, 
and Wahl on ὄπτομαι, ῷ. Ὁ. See also 1 Thess. 4:17. 2 Cor. 5:8. 
Phil. 1: 23. John 14: 3, 4. 17: 24. 

(15) “Encozonovvtes μή τις... .. ϑεοῦ, see to ié that no one fail of 
the favour of God. °Entoxonovvres, lit.’seeing ; but the sense is the 
same, and the translation more perspicuous, if anew sentence be made 
here by adopting, as I have done, the Imp. form of the verb ¢o see. 
Ati, τις, i.e. μὴ τὲς ἡ, the verb of existence being implied. ᾿ γυτερῶν 
is differently rendered by different interpreters. “Yoreg¢w means to 
come late, to arrive after the proper or favourable time, and is so ren- 
dered here by some. But ὑστερῶν ἀπο... is hardly capable of such 
a meaning, and plainly should be rendered, be wanting in respect to, 
fail of, come short of, lack. But what is yagerog? Some answer, the 
Christian religion ; and construe the whole phrase thus, ‘Guard well 
against the apostasy of any one from Christianity.’ But this warning 
has been so often repeated, and in terms so awful, it may well be doubt- 
ed whether χάρετος has the sense thus put upon it; and specially so, 
as the writer appears (in v. 14) to make a transition from his great sub- 
ject to the consideration of other things particularly important to the 
Hebrew Christians. The writer had just said, that holiness is indis- 
pensable to that happiness which God bestows. I understand him as — 
now saying, ‘See well to it, that no one fail of obtaining that divine fa- 
vour which is the result of holiness ;’ 


and so I connect it, as a hortatory 
adjunct, with the preceding sentiment. 

My τις ῥίζα... ἐνοχλῇ, lest any root of bitterness springing up 
trouble you, 1. Θ. see to it, lest any person of vicious life and example 
should rise up among you. Many commentators refer this to apostates. 


They are the more inclined to this, because a similar expression is 
66 


518 HEBREWS XII. 15, 16. 


ee in Deut. 29: 17, which there fe eee those τῶ turn from 
the worship of the true God to that of idols. But as it is not certain 
that our author designs to make a direct quotation in the present case, 
I should not consider this reason as in itself of any considerable weight. 
Even if the form of expression be quoted, the application of it must de- 
pend of course upon the context. This respects not apostasy in par- 
ticular, (as we have already seen), but other sins to which the Hebrews 
might be particularly exposed. No doubt the expression ῥίζα mexolas 
comes from the Hebrew, 42227 WNT MAD Ww 853 wr 15, lest there 
be among you any root springing up, [which is] poison and wormwood, 
Deut. 29: 17. The expression there used to describe an idolater, viz. 
root of poison and wormwood, is here applied to any person of an unholy 
life and deleterious example, who is called ῥίζα πικρίας. 

The consequence is next described. Kal διὰ ταύτης μιανϑῶσε 
πολλοί, and by ihis many be polluted. That is, the bad example of 
some, will have a pernicious and polluting influence on many. Guard 
well against it; for ἐπεσκοποῦντες is implied before μή τες Gila x. τ. A. 

(16) .27η τις πόρνος... αὐτοῦ, let there be no fornicator nor profane 
person, like Esau, who for one morscl of meat sold, his .birth-right. 


Πύρνος is explained as meaning apostate, one making defection from 
the true religion to a false one, by those who construe the whole of our 
context as relating only to apostasy. God often taxes his ancient peo- 
ple with adultery and fornication, in consequence of their having turned 
to the worship of idols. The meaning thus given to πόρνος may, no 
doubt, be philologically supported ; i.e. the word is capable of such an 
explanation. But as 1 interpret the context in a different way, it ap- 
pears to be more consonant with it, to take πόρνος as designating any 
person who indulges in gross and sensual pleasures, or who is of an 
abandoned character. So our Saviour often speaks of the Jews asa 
wicked and adulterous generation; not literally adulterous, (although 
doubtless this was true of some), but adulterous in the figurative sense 
of the word, viz. sensual, vicious, abandoned, profligate. 

BéBnhog is one who scoffs at religion or sacred things, who disregards 
what is sacred in the view of heaven. The appellations πόρνος and 
βέβηλος may both be applied to Esau here, and probably are so. As 
to the application of πόρνος, see Gen. 26: 34, 35 and Gen. 36:2. In 
regard to βέβηλος, see Gen. 25: 29—34. His birthright was not, in- 
deed, a thing of religion; but it was, in those days, a matter of great 
personal importance and advantage. The argument is from analogy. 
‘Let no one give up himself to the gratification of his lusts, as did 


HEBREWS XII. 10---18, 519 


Esau to the great grief of his father, Gen. 26:35; let no one despise 
the distinguished privileges which Christianity confers upon him, like 
Esau who despised the privileges of his birthright, and parted with 
them for a mere morsel of food.’ In the case of Esau, folly and unbe- 
lief were very conspicuous ; for the land of Canaan, as he well knew, 
had been promised to his ancestors for a possession ; and as the first 
born son, he must, according to the custom of those days, have a pecu- 
liar title to it. So those who reject the proffer of the heavenly inheri- 
tance, and renounce their duty as Christians, may with more propriety 
still be called βεβηλοι. 

(17) Those who conduct in such a manner, will hereafter weep with 
bitter lamentations, when it is beyond their power to recover what has 
been lost. Thus was it with Esau. “/ore yao... . ἀπεδοκιμάσϑη, 
Sor ye know that when he was afterwards desirous to obtain the blessing, 
it was refused. See Gen. 27: 34—40. Hvdoytav, viz. the blessing of 
his father Isaac. 

Meravoias γὰρ... .. αὐτήν, yea, he found no place for a change of 
mind [in his father], although he sought for it with tears. See Gen. 
27: 35, 38, 40. MWeravoias here refers to a change of mind in Isaac, 
who had given the blessing (appropriate to primogeniture) to Jacob. 
The writer evidently does not mean to say, that Esau found no place 
for repentance in himself. _4uryy, sc. μετάνοιαν. 

The sentiment of the whole is: ‘Guard well against indulging any 
fleshly appetites ; above all, against slighting the blessings and privi- 
leges which Christianity proffers; lest having done this, you come at 
last, when it is forever too late, bitterly to mourn over your folly and 
wickedness.’ 

(18) Ov γὰρ προσεληλύϑατε... .. ὄρει, moreover, ye are not come to 
the mount which could be touched. He means mount Sinai, which was an 
object palpable to the senses. Wyhaqauevm, contrectabile, quod tan- 
gendum sit, i. 4. αἰσϑητόν, quicquid sensu percipitur. So Tacitus, Ann. 
III. 12, oculis contrectare; and Cicero, 'Tusc. III. 15, mente contrec- 
tare. he idea of de coclo tactus, thunder-struck, is here assigned by 
some respectable expositors to τηλαφωμένῳ; but without any good 
philological support. The Greeks use Ofyecy and ϑεγγάνειν to denote 
the striking of thunder. ‘The Hebrews employ 532, which the Seventy 
translate by ἅπτεσθαι. But wiagaw answers to the Hebrew wwa 
and #179. Particularly in Talmudic and Rabbinic Hebrew, are Nww7 
and w7372 used to designate quod contrectabile est, quidquid sensu cog- 
noscitur. But, philology apart, the object of the writer in the antithesis 
between Sinai and Sion plainly shews, that he means to designate the 


520 HEBREWS XII. 18, 19. 


a ἐξ i 
former as corporeal, material; the latter as spiritual, invisible, the εν 
ject of faith, but not of the senses. Chrysostom has well drawn the 
comparison, when he says of Sinai, πάντα τοτὲ αἰσϑητὰ, καὶ ὄψεις, 


καὶ φωναί; of Sion, πάντα νοητὰ zai cogara νῦν. If the reader has 
any difficulty about the above explanation of ῃνηλαφωμένῳ, a compari 
son of Ex. 19: 12, 13 with it, will hardly leave any doubt as to the 
meaning of our author, who seems plainly to have had in his mind the 
strict injunction then made, not to touch the mountain. 

Kai κεκαυμένῳ πυρὶ... .. ϑυέλλῃ, and to flaming fire, and to thick 
clouds, and darkness, and tempest. As to the particulars of the appear- 
ance at Sinai here mentioned, see Ex. 19: 16—18. 20:18. Deut. 5: 
22: 26. 

Aezavucve πυρὶ means not simply fire, but the burning of it, i.e. 
flame ; see Deut. 5: 23, 25. It may also be translated in connection 
with ὄρει, sc. the mount that burned with fire. But probably it was not 
the design of the writer that it should be so taken; for as he has arranged 
ψηλαφωμένῳ before ogee while it qualifies it, in like manner he has ar- 
ranged χεχαυμένῳ before πυρί which it also qualifies. I do not perceive 
the absurdity which Kuinoel charges upon the expression flaming fire ; 
and therefore I can accede to this arrangement of the words. 

Ivoq@ is probably the Aeolic form of νέφος, for which the Aeolians 
use γνόφος or yvogos. The Seventy use it to translate 7:2, in Deut. 
4:11, et alibi. It is doubtless used by the Seventy and by the writer 
of our epistle, to designate the thick dark cloud that surrounded mount 
Sinai when God appeared there. The word often means tenebrae. 
Here it means the cause of darkness, i. e. thick black clouds. 

Sxorw, Hebrew Jen or >]4y, the darkness or gloom itself, occa- 
sioned by the cloud upon Sinai aba around it. Θυξλλῃ is designed, 
perhaps, to correspond to the Hebrew >. If not, it is descriptive of 
the tempest that accompanied the dark cloud, the thunder and lightning 
of Sinai, Ex. 19: 16, 18. 20: 18. 

(19) Kal σάλπιγγος ἤχῳ, and to the sound of the trumpet. See Ex. 
19: 16, 19. Probably the meaning is, a voice like that of a trumpet, 
i.e. very loud. In Deut. 5: 22, it is called a great voice; in Deut. 4: 
12, it is called the voice of words, i. e. articulate sounds ; and in Deut. 4: 
33, the voice of God. From comparing all these passages together it 
seems evident that the meaning is, ‘an articulate voice loud like that 
of a trumpet.’ 

Kai φωνῇ énuatov... λόγον, and the voice of commands, the hear- 
ers of which refused that another word should be added to them. Comp. 
Ex. 19: 16, 19 and 20: 18, 19. 


HEBREWS XII. 19---Ἱ, 521 
ee ΤΟ ε + ἐστε δ ee ee πῆς... 6. 

“δημάτων, lit. things uttered or said. But it applies to any sort of 
speech, and among other significations, it has that of command; see 
Luke 3:2. Acts 10:2. 11:14. Heb. 1:3. 11:3. So 727 in He- 
brew, 6. g. Est. 1: 19. Josh. 1:18. 1 Sam. 17: 29. Is. 8:10. Ex. 34: 
28. So also "aN, to command, Est. 1: 17. 4: 18. 9:14. 1 Chron. 
21:7. See Wahl on ῥῆμα. 

“He οἱ ἀκούσαντες κι τ. Δ. The exact shade of the writer’s meaning 
is, ‘ The hearers of which [voice] refused that a word should be added 
to them, viz. αὐτοῖς δήμασι, to those commands.’ In other words, the 
exceeding loud sound of the voice inspired them with such terror, that 
they declined having any more commands addressed to them in this 
manner. 

(20) Οὐκ ἔφεῤον yoo... . λεϑιβολοϑήσεται, for they could not en- 
dure the injunction, “ Even if a beast touch the mountain, it shail be 
stoned ;” see Ex. 19:18. The vulgate edition of the New Testament 
adds to this clause, 7 βολίδε χατατοξευϑήσεται. But no manuscript of 
any authority exhibits this phrase; nor any ancient version; nor any 
of the ecclesiastical Greek writers, Oecumenius excepted. Beyond all 
doubt it is an addition of later times, taken from the Septuagint of Ex. 
19:13. Οὐκ ἔφερον, they could not endure, means, ‘ they were greatly 
affected with the severity of this command, viz. so that they could not 
bear it without awe and terror.’ 

(21) Kai—ovrw φοβερὸν .... ἔντρομος, and—so terrible was the 
sight—even Moses said, “I fear and tremble.” Οὕτω φοβερὸν ἣν τὸ 
φανταζόμενον seems to me, plainly, an expression thrown in by the 
writer, in order to augment the description of the scene, which inter- 
rupts the regular narration, and is therefore to be construed as if inclu- 
ded in a parenthesis. But as the whole of vs. 20, 21, is evidently a 
parenthesis, I have avoided the insertion of the parenthetic marks a 
second time, and noted the words included within the inner parenthesis, 
by a dash at each extremity. A«/, which introduces the last clause 
here, zai... . Mwuore, has the force of and even. 

But where is the history of Moses’ trembling? No where in the Old 
Testament is it expressly mentioned. It is implied, however, in Ex. 
19: 16, where it is said that “all the people in the camp trembled ;” 
and Moses was with them, comp. v. 14. The fear mentioned Deut. 9: 
19, was on a different occasion, though this passage has often been ad- 
duced as supporting the affirmation now in question. Boehme says: 
“The writer has transferred to his present subject, a passage (from Deut. 
9:19) which does not belong to it, so that, by a rhetorical artifice, he 


522 : HEBREWS XII. 21, 22. 


might shew, that the Mosaic dispensation was full of terror.” “Cui 
sententiae,’ says Kuinoel, “subscribo.” But it seems to me a very 
shallow artifice which would undertake to mislead Jewish readers, in 
regard to parts of their Scriptures so conspicuous as those which respect 
Moses and the legislation at mount Sinai. I should hardly know, how- 
ever, which to wonder at most, the artifice, or the exegesis of those who 
impute it to the author of our epistle. The particular history to which 
our author here alludes, was doubtless a matter of tradition among the 
Jews of his day; marks of which are still extant in the Rabbinical 
writings. See Wetstein on Gal. 3: 19, and L. Cappell on Heb. 12: 21. 
"Exgopos εἰμι καὶ ἔντρομος means, 7 am greatly afraid. 

To φανταζόμενον, (the neuter participle being used like a neuter 
adjective), is to be construed as an abstract noun, sc. species, appear- 
ance, sight. ‘This idiom is very common in the writings of Paul. 

(22) Next follows the antithesis’of all this scene of terror, which ac- 
companied the introduction of the ancient law. Worshippers under the 
new dispensation approach a scene of a very different nature. “Ada 
προσεληλύϑατε Σιὼν ὄρει, but ye are come to mount Zion. Not the lite- 
ral mount Zion, but the figurative, i.e. heavenly,one. This is made plain 
by the additional description which follows. Ke πόλει ϑεοῦ ζῶντος, 
“ηρουσαλὴμ ἐπουρανίῳ, and to the city of the living God, the heavenly 
Jerusalem. The epithet ἐπουρανίῳ here determines, of course, that a 
spiritual Jerusalem, a heavenly city is meant. Comp. Heb. 11: 14— 
10. 12: 28. 13:14. Gal. 4: 26. Rev. 3: 12. 21:2, 10. 

Kai μυριάσιν, ἀγγέλων πανηγύρει, and to myriads, the joyful com- 
pany of angels. So, beyond all reasonable doubt, this clause is to be 
pointed and translated ; for πανήγυρις is not to be joined (as some later 
critics have joined it) with ἐκκλησίᾳ x. τ. Δ. The structure of the whole 
paragraph denotes this; for each separate clause of it (in vs. 18, 19, 
22—24) is commenced by καί, and continued (where any addition 15 
made to it) by nouns in apposition, without any conjunctive particle 
between them. E. g. καὶ πόλει... “ηρουσαλὴμ ἐπουρανίῳ "---καὶ 
κριτῇ, em πάντων, etc. The same construction, therefore, beyond 
any good ground of doubt, is to be adopted in the clause under examin- 
ation. Dr. Knapp has arranged it in this manner, in his able disserta- 
tion on Heb. 12: 18—24, in his Scripta varit Argumenti. 

Mugvaot, lit. myriads, i.e. ten thousands, used by the Greeks to 
signify a great and indefinite number. In respect to the number of 
angels, compare Rev. 5:11. Matt. 26:53. Luke 2: 19. Dan. 7: 10. 
Tlavyyvorg, among the Greeks, meant an assembly of men convened 


HEBREWS ΧΙ]. 22, 23. 523 


feasts, etc. The mention of such an assembly of angels, shews that the 
writer intends to describe the objects of the invisible world as seen with 
the eye of faith, not things palpable, not the objects of sense. He has, 
moreover, a design to contrast this joyful solemn assembly of the angels, 
with that awful one who were present at the giving of the law upon Si- 
nai. In respect to the presence of angels on that occasion, compare Ps. 
68:17 [18]. Deut. 33: 2 (Septuagint). Joseph. Ant. XV. 3,5. Gal. 
3:19. Acts 7: 53. Heb. 2:2 with the note upon it. 

Our English version joins μυρεάσε with ἀγγέλων and renders, “to an 
innumerable company of angels.” It also joins πανηγύρει with ἐκκλη- 
σίᾳ, and renders, “to the general assembly and church, etc.” But the 
latter is not permitted, on account of the manner in which the author 
has constructed the whole of his enumeration of particulars, in vs. 18, 
19, 22, 23; which, as I have already observed, are each separated from 
the preceding one by xa. If it be said that ‘ πανηγύρει, in order to 
be constructed with ἀγγέλων, ought to precede it;’ the answer is, that 
in v. 19 σαλπιγγος ἤχῳ is constructed in the same manner as ἀγγέλων 
πανηγύρει here; as is also διαϑήκης μεσίτη in v.24. The Greek ad- 
mits no other correct grammatical mode of construction, but that which 
is given in the translation. 

(23) Kal ἐκκλησίᾳ... ἐν οὐρανοῖς, and to the assembly or church 
of the first-born, enrolled in heaven. °“Exxzdnola, conventus, a concourse 
or assembly of the people. It is not a mere ecclesiastical word, but de- 
signates (by usage) any kind of assembly, sacred or civil. Here it 
designates either the sacred assembly or church of the upper world, or 
else that upon earth. Πρωτοτόκων must not be literally understood 
here, but figuratively. Among the Hebrews, primogeniture conferred 
distinguished rights and privileges. Hence, figuratively taken, zow- 
τοτύκος means any one who enjoys distinguished rights and privileges, 
whether he is first-born in a literal respect or not. Thus Israel, as_be- 
loved of God and highly valued, is called his first-born, Ex. 4: 22. In 
like manner Ephraim is named, Jer. 31:9. So the Son of Sirach (86: 
12) calls Israel. The same appellation of endearment is given to the 
predicted Messiah, in Ps. 89: 27. In asimilar sense ἀπαρχή is used, in 
James 1: 18. I understand it here of those who had been most distin- 
guished for piety and usefulness, such as patriarchs, prophets, apostles, 
martyrs, etc. Storr understands it as referring to the angels, and as 
descriptive of them; but without any good support from the wuss loquen- 
di of Scripture. 


§24 HEBREWS XII. 23. 


᾿»“πογεγοαμμένων, enrolled, a word employed by the Greeks to sig- 
nify the inscribing of a person’s name in a record as a citizen, as a free 
man entitled to all the rights of citizenship. It here marks citizenship 
in the New Jerusalem or the heavenly Zion. The ἐχχλησία here is 
that with which Christians are to mingle, in the full and final enjoy- 
ment of their privileges. Saints, while on earth, are usually spoken of 
as having their names written (γεγραμμένα, ἐγράφη, not ἀπογεγραμμέ- 
va) in the book of life; e. g. Luke 10: 20. Phil. 4:3. Rev. 3:5. 19: 
8. 17:8. 20: 15. 21:27. 22:19; and Dr. Knapp and others inter- 
pret our text, as speaking of the saints on earth. They appear not to 
have noticed the difference of the phraseology employed in reference to 
such; and certain it is, that the general tenor of the passage before us 
has respect only to the heavenly city and assembly. Still, I would not 
object to the exegesis which is grounded on the supposition, that the 
writer here means to speak of the church on earth in distinction from 
the inhabitants of the heavenly world. It has this advantage, viz. that 
it does not interfere with the πνεύμασι δικαίων τετελειωμένων in the 
latter part of the verse. 170 be enrolled in heaven, is to be entitled to 
all the privileges of a member of the heavenly city. 

Kai κριτῇ, Gem πάντων, and to the judge, the God of all. Kory 
designates him before whose tribunal all must appear that enter a future 
world. But to Christians he is a merciful, not a condemning judge ; 
and the design here doubtless is, to represent the judge as the PoaPev- 
τῆς, the awarder of the prize, to those who have successfully fought the 
battles of the Lord. God of ail means here, God of all the mgororo- 
χων, i. 6. that God who acknowledges them with favour and approba- 
tion; comp. Eph. 4:6. Rom. 3:29. Heb. 8:10. 11:16. Acts 7: 
32. Ex. 3:6. Zech. 8:8. Rev. 21:37. In entering a future world, 
Christians must, indeed, present themselves before the tribunal of the 
eternal judge; but he is not a judge severe and rigid; he is in an ap- 
propriate sense their G'od ; he will regard them with favour, he will treat 
them with kindness. Thus all is zmviting with respect to the heavenly 
Zion. The transposition made by our English version, to God the judge 
of all, is against the arrangement of the text, and fails to give the ap- 
propriate sense of the words. The meaning of 0 ἐπὶ πάντων ϑεῦς, 
Rom. 9: ὅ, is different from ϑεὸς πάντων here, the former being “ su- 
preme God.” 

Καὶ πνεύμασι δικαίων τετελειωμένων, and to the spirits of the just 
made perfect, i. e. exalted to a state of final reward. 17:ετελεεωμένων, 
having completed their probation, and arrived at their mature state, viz. 
a final state of glory ; see on Heb. 2: 10. 


HEBREWS XII, 24, 25. 525 


(24) Kai διαϑήκης..... λώμραῦς and to the mediator of the new cov~ 
enant, Jesus. See on 8: 6. 7: 22, where the same idea is exhibited. 

Koi aiuare....” Asi, and to the blood of sprinkling, which speak- 
eth better [things ] than fi blood of | Adel. Respecting the blood of 
Christ offered in the eternal sanctuary, see Heb. 9: 11—14, 23. In 
respect to sprinkling, see 9:13, 19. Figuratively or spiritually, no 
doubt, this is to be understood. Sprinkled with Jesus’ blood, the wor- 
shippers in the sanctuary above may approach the presence of God, i. e. 
the inner sanctuary, confident of a gracious reception. As the text 
now is, the literal version would be: speaketh something better than 
Abel, i.e. than Abel speaks. But the sense is plainly as given above. 

Kosittoy λαλοῦντι, instead of xgetrrove λαλοῦντι, for the weight of 
authority is beyond all doubt on the side of κρεῖττον. Literally ren- 
dered, χρείττον would mean something better. But this is less grateful 
to the English ear, than the form of expression in the version. The 
meaning of the phrase seems to me quite simple and easy. The blood 
of Christ proclaims pardon and peace; the blood of Abel cried to God 
from the ground (Gen. 4:10) for the infliction of punishment upon his 
murderer. Παρὰ τὸν (not 10)” 48 mA, may be regarded as an elliptical 
expression for Tuga τὸ αἷμα τοῦ ".“2βελ. That the verb λαλεῖ is un- 
derstood, in order to complete the grammatical sense of the phrase, is 
quite plain. 'The form of the sentence, however, must be varied in or- 
der to express this verb. It would be thus, ἢ τὸ αἶμα τοῦ ΄.“2βηλ λαλεῖ. 

Such is the contrast between the former and latter dispensation. 
There all is awful, terrible, and threatening ; here all is alluring, gra- 
cious, and animating. Who now can adhere to the former, and re- 
nounce the latter? Such is the nature of the argument presented by 
the writer. He next proceeds to warn the Hebrews in the most sol- 
emn and affectionate manner, against a renunciation of their Christian 
faith. 

(25) Bienete, uy... λαλοῦντα, take heed that ye turn not away 
from him who addresses you. Tlagutréouat means to deprecate, to 
decline, to endeavour to avoid, aversari, respuere, repudiare. But who 
is τὸν λαλοῦνταῦ 'Vhe sequel of the verse clearly shews that Christ is 
meant, who came from heaven to instruct men and warn them of their 
danger, or rather (with reference to the preceding verse) ‘ who speaks 
to men by his blood.’ 

To give efficacy. to this warning, he adds an example. Zi γὰρ éxei- 
vor... χρηματίζοντα, for if they did not escape [punishment], who re- 
Stead him that aed them upon earth. That after ἔφυγον, either 

67 


526 HEBREWS XII. 25, 26. 
δικήν, ἀπόλειαν, or some such word, is to be supplied by the mind of 
the reader, is plain from the nature of the subject and of the context. 
But who is τὸν χρηματίζοντα! Moses, 1 answer. The two dispensa- 
tions are here compared, in respect to the penalty to be inflicted on the 
contemptuous and refractory. The legislator or head of each dispensa- 
tion, is introduced as the person who addresses the laws or warnings of 
God to men. See the same sentiment, in Heb. 10: 28, 29. 

Πολλῷ μᾶλλον... . ἀποστρεφόμενοι, much more shall we [not es- 
cape], if we turn away from him [who warns us] from heaven. See a 
similar commination, in 2: 1—3. 10:28, 29. That χρηματίζοντα is 
implied after cov, results from common grammatical usage. ‘An οὐ- 
θανῶν is meant to represent, either that Christ came from heaven and 
warned them, or that being in heaven he now warns them, viz. by his 
messengers. It is possible, however, that God is here meant by the 
writer, as the one who warns them. But the antithesis between the 
head of the old dispensation and the new, hardly admits of this con- 
struction. 

The ellipsis of ov φευξόμεθα after ἡμεῖς, is sufficiently plain from 
the nature of the sentence. 

(26) Οὗ ἡ φωνὴ... .. τότε, whose voice then shook the earth; viz. 
when, as with the sound of a mighty trumpet waxing louder and loud- 
er, he spake on mount Sinai so that the earth trembled; see on vs. 19 
seq. Whose voice, i. 6. the voice of Christ; so Michaelis, Storr, Cra- 
mer, Rosenmueller, Boehme, Kuinoel, and Bloomfield. It is one of the 
many passages in the New Testament, which ascribe to Christ the same 
things that are ascribed to Jehovah in the Old Testament. 

Nov 02... . οὐρανὸν, but now he has promised, saying, “ Vet once 
more will I shake not only the earth, but heaven also.” ᾿Ππήγγελται, 
has he promised, the Perfect Pass. often having an active sense, be- 
cause it belongs also to the Midd. voice. Buttm. Gramm. ὃ 89. 2. 
ζει ἅπαξ corresponds to the Hebrew 0372 NON πὶ, yet once, after a 
little time, Hag. 2.6. The citation is from the Septuagint, but ov 
μόνον is an addition by the writer of our epistle, and is designed to give 
emphasis to the declaration. That the passage has respect to the 
changes which would be introduced by the coming of the Messiah, and 
the new dispensation which he would commence, is evident from Hag. 
2:7—9. Such figurative language is frequent in the Scriptures, and 
denotes great changes which are to take place. So the apostle explains 
it here, in the very next verse. Comp. Is. 13: 13. Hag. 2: 21, 22. Jo- 
el 3: 16. 2: 10, 31. Matt. 24: 29—31, comp. v. 34. 


» 


HEBREWS ΧΙ], 27, 98. 527 


(27) To δὲ, ἔτυ anak... σαλευόμενα, now this “ yet once more,” sig- 
nifies a removing of the things which are shaken, as so made that they 
might await things which are not shaken. The manner in which the 
writer understood the figurative expression in question, viz. the shaking 
of the heavens and the earth, is here plainly declared. It denotes a 
great change, a μέτάϑεσις, removal or abolition of the things changed, 
i. e. of the Jewish dispensation. ‘The language which had been literal- 
ly applied to the quaking of Sinai, when the law was given, is now fig- 
uratively applied, in the usual Scriptural way, in order to denote a great 
change of a moral nature. 

᾿ς πεποιημένων is a locus vexatissimus. It would be of little use to 
detail the various opinions upon it; most of which seem to have sprung 
from a misapprehension of the meaning of the paragraph in which it 
stands. Even Michaelis and Storr interpret the passage as referring to 
changes in the natural world at the end of time ; most evidently, against 
the meaning of the writer. I understand πεποιημένων to designate 
either simply things made or created, yevgonoinra, caduca, mutabilia, 
(ideas necessarily implied by a term which designates things of a cor- 
poreal and created nature) ; or else | must construe the whole thus: so 
made that they should wait for the things that will not be shaken. It is 
clear that the writer means to say, that the ancient order of things, viz. 
the Jewish dispensation, will be changed, removed, abolished, in like 
manner as the objects of the natural creation. Hither of the methods 
of interpretation just proposed, would convey this sentiment. Accord- 
ing to the last mode of explanation, μένη has a sense like the He- 
brew mip, MDM, or 512; 1. 6. it means that the former things should 
be so circumstanced as to wait for or expect a change or removing. 
All this change or abolition of the o/d dispensation was to take place, 
in order that a mew one might be introduced, which should undergo no 
change ; ἵνα μείνη τὰ μὴ σαλευόμενα. 

(28) Avo βασιλείαν .. .. παραλαμβάνοντες, wherefore, having ob- 
tained a kingdom which cannot be shaken, i. e. the gospel dispensation, 
the βασιλείαν τοῦ ϑεοῦ or τοῦ χρεστοῦ or τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, a regnum im- 
mutabile. Plainly the βασιλείαν ἀσάλευτον here, is the opposite or an- 
tithesis of σαλευομένων in the clause above, which must therefore mean 
(in such a connection) the Jewish dispensation. The new dispensation 
is not mutable, caducous, but ἀσάλευτον, immutable, not to be shaken, 
not to be changed. 

"Eyomev χάριν... εὐλαβείας, either let us manifest our gratitude 
(by which we may serve God acceptably), with reverence and fear, or 


528 neBrews ΧΙ]. 28, 29. 


else we must translate as below. In the first case ἔχωμεν yaouvy means 
gratiam habeamus, i. e. let us express, manifest, exhibit gratitude, viz. 
for the unshaken kingdom which we have received, with all its privileges, 
preferences, and blessings ; and in the second, let us hold fast that grace, 
i. 6. the grace bestowed under the new dispensation, under ‘the kingdom 
that cannot be shaken.’ For sucha sense of ἔχωμεν, see 1 Cor. 11: 16. 
Rev.12: 17. John 14: 21.) Phil.13.7. ΠΟ Tim. 12/19. 329.):2:Tim: 
1:13. Heb.6: 19. I have (on reviewing my work) preferred this lat- 
ter sense, as the version will shew; but I have some doubts whether 
τὴν would not be necessary before χάρεν in order to support this inter- 
pretation. ὐαρέστως, acceptably, i.e. we must serve God in the way 
of holding fast this yagvs, in order to render our services well-pleasing 
in his sight. 

Mera aidovs καὶ εὐλαβείας, with pious reverence, i. 6. let us exhibit, 
in our service, pious reverence for his spotless and awful perfections. 
᾿Πυλάβεια means, piety, pious devotedness, the spirit of religious devotion; 
and aidws means reverence. I take the two words as designed to con- 
vey an idea of the zntense pious reverence, which ought to be paid to 
the great God whom the gospel exhibits. The principle, that one of 
1wo synonymous nouns in such cases may be employed for the sake of 
intensity, hardly needs to be again stated; and that one of them may 
be employed in the room of an adjective is equally plain; so that (if we 
choose) we may translate, with profound reverence. 

(29) Kal yao. ... καταναλίσκον, for our God is a consuming fire. 
If this be not a quotation, the image is drawn from the description of 
Sinai (v. 18), which was still in the writer’s mind. The idea is, that 
God, if called to punish unbelief, is not only surrounded by flaming 
fire as he was on mount Sinai, but this is also πῦρ καταναλίσκον, de- 
vouring, destructive, tormenting fire. 'The awful punishment of unbe- 
lievers and apostates is set forth by the expression in question, in a very 
striking manner. But probably the expression is a quotation of Deut. 
A; 24, where it is employed by way of commination. 


HEBREWS XIII. 1—3. 529 


Tho writer now concludes his epistle, by various practical exhortations, adapted to the state 
and circumstances of his readers; and to the wants of the church in every age, where the circum- 
stances are like those of the persons here addressed. 


CHAE. XIE 


(1) “Hf φιλαδελφία μενέτω, let brotherly love continue, i.e. let it be 
constant, let it remain in exercise. I am on the whole disposed to be- 
lieve that the writer means to say: ‘ Let it continue to be as it has hith- 
erto been ;’ for he has repeatedly commended them, in our epistle, for 
their social sympathies and brotherly feeling. WcAadeAgéa is the mu- 
tual love of Christians as such. 

(2) Τῆς φιλοξενίας μὴ enthavOaveode, cease not to practise hospi- 
tality, or forget not hospitality. This was peculiarly a duty in those 
times of persecution and distress, when many were suffering the loss of 
their means of subsistence, and were obliged to cast themselves on the 
charity of their brethren. 

Ava ταύτης γὰρ .... ἀγγέλους, for by this, some have entertained 
angels unawares. "Lhadov ξενίσαντες, a truly Attic mode of expres- 
sion ; for the Greeks were wont to join the verb λανϑάνω with the par- 
ticiple of another verb, when they wished to express the idea, that the 
action indicated by that other verb was done unconsciously, undcsigned- 
ly, without foresight. Literally the phrase may be translated, some en- 
tertaining angels were ignorant, viz. that ai were doing so. See ex- 
amples of the kind referred to in Gen. 18: 2 seq. and Gen. 19: 1 seq. 
The meaning of the whole is: ‘Continue to practise hospitality, since 
greater honour and reward is consequent upon it, than you might be 
ready to suppose.’ 

(3) Mipvijoneode ... . συνδεδεμένοι, remember those who are in 
bonds, as if ye yourselves were fellow-prisoners. The writer had be- 
fore adverted to their past sufferings under persecution, 10 : 32—34 ; 
and also to their present trials, 10: 36. 12: 3—5. Here he exhorts 
them to sympathize with those who are in bonds, as if they themselves 
were in the like condition, because they were continually exposed to be 
thrown into prison. A high degree of sympathy is designated by the 
expression, ὡς συνδεδεμένοι. 

Tov κακουχουμένων.... σώματι, [remember] those who are in- 
Juriously treated, as [it becomes] those who arc themselves still in the 
body. “Ovteg ἐν τῷ σώματι, i.e. daily exposed themselves to persecu- 


539 HEBREWS XIII. 4—6. 


tion and suffering, and therefore liable to need commiseration from 
others. 

(4) Tiucog ὃ yamwog.... ἀμίαντος, let marriage be honoured among 
all, and the bed undefiled. So it should be rendered, because the 
whole strain is hortatory. So Schulz: “ Ehrenwerth sei allen die 
Ehe.” It is capable of another version, viz. marriage is honourable for 
all, etc. “Lv πᾶσι τίμιος may also be translated, is altogether honour- 
able. The first method however of rendering the phrase, seems to me 
preferable ; as it is then made to be congruous with the context. 

The fact that such an exhortation is here addressed to the Hebrews, 
shews, either that some of them were chargeable with a breach of the 
precept respecting chastity, or that they were in danger of becoming so. 
Polygamy and concubinage were practised by all around them, and had 
been for time immemorial. The demands of Christianity, then, in re- 
spect to these practices, might seem a grievance to some of the He- 
brew Christians, and probably they were tempted not to regard them, 
and therefore needed caution. 

Πόρνους δὲ... .. ϑεὸς, but whoremongers and adulterers God will 
punish or judge ; 1. 6. those who live in fornication while unmarried, or 
commit adultery after marriage, will not escape divine indignation. 

(5) “Agiagyvoos.... παροῦσι, let your conduct be free from cov- 
etousness, and be content with what ye have. “Form is understood af- 
ter ὦ τρόπος, for the sentence is hortatory. 700g means behaviour, 
the same as ἤϑος, manner of life. °A4oxovpevoe τοῖς παροῦσι, i. e. 
indulge no greedy desires for earthly possessions, but cheerfully submit 
to the allotment of providence in respect to these things. 

Aros yoo... . ἐγκαταλίπω, for he hath said, I will never leave thee 
nor forsake thee; i. e. God hath promised to provide for you in the 
best manner, and you should put your trust in him. The phrase 
here quoted, may come either from Deut. 31: 6. Josh. 1:5, or 1 Chron. 
28 : 20. 

(6) “Ὥστε Dagdovrrag.... ἄνϑρωπος, so that we may boldly say, 
‘ The Lord is my helper and I will not fear ; what can man do to me ?” 
The quotation is from Ps. 118: 6; where the Hebrew, which corre- 
sponds to κύριος ἐμοὶ βοηϑός, is Ὁ MIn*, Jehovah is for me. The 
verse is divided by the accents in Hebrew, as the translation above 

_divides it. The apostle has given the sense exactly. “ore ϑαρῥοὺν- 
τας ἡμᾶς, sc. εἶναι, which is implied after wore. The meaning of 
the verse is: ‘Under whatever trials and difficulties we may be placed, 
we need not be filled with terror or painful apprehension, for God will 
help us. 


HEBREWS XIII. 7---9. 531 


(7) Mvnuovevete .... ϑεοῦ, remember your leaders, who have spo- 
ken unto you the word of God. “Hyovmevot, duces, praesides, leaders, 
guides, directors, which here means teachers, as the explanatory clause 
that follows clearly shews. Aoyor τοῦ ϑεοῦ, the gospel. 

ἴων ἀναϑεωροῦντες .... πίστιν, and attentively considering the 
end of their manner of life, imitate their faith. That is, calling to 
mind the peaceful and happy death of those religious teachers among 
you, who gave you instruction respecting the word of life, imitate their 
faith, i. e. persevere in your Christian profession, as they did, to the very 
end of life. 

Storr and others refer ἔκβασιν τὴς ἀναστροφῆς, to the sequel or re- 
ward that ensued, in consequence of the manner of life which these 
teachers had led. But I cannot find reason enough to believe that 
ἔκβασεν may be properly understood in such a sense. It is not impro- 
bable that the writer refers here to the triumphant death of Stephen, 
Acts vir, and of James, Acts xr. He exhorts his readers to follow the 
example of those faithful Christain teachers, who had died a peaceful 
and happy death, although perhaps a premature one. 

(8) ησοὺῦς Χριστὸς... .. αἰῶνας, Jesus Christ is the same, yester- 
day, to day, and forever. That is, Christ is always the same, always 
ready and willing to aid you in all your trials; comp. 7:3, 15—17, 21, 
25, 28; also 5: 6, 9. 2:18. 9: 24. 10: 12—14, 23. Ὃ αὐτὸς corre- 
sponds with ov ὁ αὐτὸς εἶ, Ps. 102: 28 [Sept. 101: 27], in Hebrew 
Nim 08, which there designates immutability or eternity ; for the 
parallel distich is, Thy years shall not come to an end. 'The absolute 
eternity of Christ (a parte ante et a parte post), is not here directly 
asserted ; but the simple object of the writer is, to shew that ‘he ever 
liveth to aid his disciples.’ To refer the expression to Christian doc- 
trine, and unite this verse with the one which follows, seems to me 
plainly a deserting of the obvious intention of the writer. Dr. Schulz 
construes the passage as I have done. X0ée, xai σήμερον, καὶ εἰς 
τοὺς αἰῶνας, is a Hebraism, used to express the past, the present, and 
the future; and ὦ αὐτός, joined with these, denotes immutability. 

(9) “ιδαχαῖς ποικίλαις... .. παραφέρεσϑε, be not carried hither 
and thither, by diverse and strange doctrines. Tlowxihorg καὶ ξέναις 
designates doctrines different, diverse from true Christian doctrine, and 
foreign (strangers) to it. Such were the doctrines of the Judaizing 
teachers respecting many of their ceremonial observances and tradi- 
tionary rites; and to these the writer here adverts, as appears by the 
sequel. For παραφέρεσϑε some manuscripts and editions have πὲρύ- 


532 neBREWS XIII. 9, 10. 


φέρεσϑε, which Ernesti and some other critics prefer; but it is not 
supported by equal authority. 

Ἀαλὸν yoo yauere.... περιπατήσαντες, for it is good that the 
heart should be confirmed by grace, not by meats, by which those have 
not been profited who have been occupied therewith. A difficult expres- 
sion, about which there has been a great variety of opinion and con- 
jecture. Xagere seems to me plainly to refer here to the gracious truth 
or doctrine of the Christian religion. The writer had just said: “ Be 
not tossed to and fro by doctrines diverse and alien from Christianity.” 
Next follows the assertion, “‘ It is good to be established, [settled, con- 
firmed], in the gracious doctrines of the gospel, rather than to put con- 
fidence in meats, etc.’ Construed in this way, all is plain and congru- 
ous. βρώμασι indicates the various kinds of meats, which were dis- 
tinguished by the Judaizing Christians into clean and unclean; the 
first of which might be safely and properly eaten, but the second must 
be avoided, on peril of losing one’s character for piety and incurring the 
displeasure of God. All attention to this subject the writer regards as 
useless, and avers that those who have been sedulously attentive to it, 
have reaped no spiritual profit from it. “Περεπατήσαντες, like the He- 
brew 2397, means to be concerned with, to be occupied with, to be- 
stow one’s attention upon. In regard to the wnprofitableness of such an 
attention to meats, comp. Heb. 7: 18. 

(10) “Ayouev.... λατρεύοντες, we have an altar, of which those 
have no right to eat who render their service to the tabernacle. A fig- 
urative expression, borrowed from the Jewish ritual, and accommodated 
to express the privileges of Christians. According to the usages of 
sacrifice, in most cases, some part or parts of the victims offered were 
reserved for the use of the priests, and in some cases were to be eaten 
also by the offerer ; see Lev. 6:26. Num. 18:9, 10. Lev. 7: 33, 34. 
Num. 6:19. Lev. 7: 15. 19:6. But the 5249 was a holocaust, i. e. 
an offering which was to be entirely consumed by fire ; particularly, the 
mdb» offered on the great day of atonement, Lev. 16: 14—16, 27. Lev. 
4: 3—12. The reference in our text is to those sacrifices, a part of 
which were eaten by the priests and the offerers, in so far as the writer 
alludes to partaking of them. But when he says that ‘Christians have 
a sacrifice, of which those who pay their service to the altar have no 
right to partake,’ he means, that the benefits procured by the atoning 
sacrifice of Christ, do not belong, or will not be granted, to such as rest 
their hopes of salvation on the ritual sacrifices of the Jewish law, i. e. to 
such as continue to be disciples of Judaism, or turn back from Chris- 


HEBREWS XIII. 11, 12. 533 


tianity to Judaism, and thus renounce the blessings procured for believ- 
ers by the death of Christ. 

(11) “ὧν γὰρ siopeoerar.... παρεμβολῆς, moreover the bodies of 
those animals, whose blood was carried into the sanctuary as a sin-offer- 
ing by the high-priest, were burned without the camp. The yao here 
introduces a second reason why Christians should not be carried hither 
and thither by divers doctrines, v. 9. The first reason begins with χα- 
λὸν γάρ; the second with wy γάρ x.t.4. I have translated it morcover, 
not because γάρ strictly considered has this meaning, but because the 
connection of the discourse in this way becomes more facile in English. 
As to the offerings here alluded to, see Lev. 16: 11, 14—16, 27. The 
construction of the verse is peculiar, and literally translated it would run 
thus: “The blood of which animals was brought into the sanctuary... 
the bodies of the same were burned, etc.” To make the verse plain, 
the arrangement has been altered in the translation. “Aucoriag sin- 
offering, or περὶ ἁμαρτίας, [offering] on account of sin, which conveys 
the same idea. ‘The object in offering the blood of goats and bullocks 
in the most holy place, was to make atonement for sin. JZageufodne, 
camp, refers to the time when the Israelites were in the wilderness, and 
lived in encampments. 

(12) Avo καὶ “Inoovs ... ἔπαϑε, wherefore Jesus also, in order that he 
might make expiation for the people by his own blood, suffered without 
the gate. “Ayraon, might make expiation; see on 2:11. Ava τοῦ 
ἰδίου αἵματος, comp. 9: 12, 14, 25,26. 10:19. Acts 20:28. Eph. 1: 
1:7. 1 Pet. 1:19. Rev.1:5. 5:19. “&w τῆς πύλης, viz. the gates 
of Jerusalem; for he was crucified on Calvary, which was then without 
the walls of the city, although it is now within them. 

Vs. 11, 12, are designed as a comparison between the sacrifice on 
the great day of atonement, and the expiatory sacrifice of Christ. The 
blood of the former was presented before God, in the most holy place ; 
the blood of the latter, in the eternal sanctuary above, 9: 12, 23, 24. 
The bodies of the beasts used for the former sacrifice, were consumed 
or destroyed without the camp ; the body of Jesus was sacrificed or de- 
stroyed, without the gate of Jerusalem. The atoning sacrifice of Chris- 
tians is analogous, then, to that of the Jews, but of infinitely higher 
efficacy ; comp. 9: 138, 14. 10: 4,12. The particular object however 
of vs. 11, 12, is to introduce Christ as an example of suffering, in order 
to impress upon the Hebrews the necessity of perseverance in their 
Christian profession, amidst all their trials and difficulties. But the 

68 


534 HEBREWS XIII. 18—15. 


manner of ἜΡΝΟΣ this example, is altogether in unison with the 
analogies which are so often repeated in other parts of our epistle. 

(13) Τοίνυν ésozoueda .... φέροντες, let us then go forth to him 
without the camp, bearing reproach like his. That is: ‘Since Jesus suf- 
fered persecution and ignominy and distress, let us follow him, even if we 
endure reproaches like those which he endured. Let us adhere to the 
profession of Christianity, although it be counted as ignominious and 
worthy of reproach. In respect to suffering with Christ, comp. Rom. 
8:17. 2 Tim. 2:10, 11. 1 Pet. 4: 18. 2Cor.4: 10. Rev. 1:9. That 
ὀνειδισμὸν αὐτοῦ means reproach such as Christ suffered, is plain from 
the object of the writer. Comp. Col. 1: 24, which is exactly in point; 
and see on Heb. 11: 26. The same sentiment that this verse contains, 
is inculcated in Matt. 10: 38, where it is expressed by λαμβάνει τὸν 
σταυρὸν αὑτοῦ. 

(14) Οὐ γὰρ ἔχομεν... ἐπιζητοῦμεν, for here we have no permanent 
city, but we seek for one yet future. Iv wo introduces a reason why 
Christians ought willingly to bear with reproaches and sorrows.—In 
11: 14 the writer calls the heavenly inheritance which the patriarchs 
sought, πατρίδα; and afterwards (v. 16) πόλιν. Here the appellation 
πολον is used, because the writer had just been alluding to Christians 
being thrust out or going out of the city, viz. out of Jerusalem, to suffer 
ignominy as Christ did. The design of our verse is, to shew the He- 
brews that it could not be of any great importance, should they be exiled 
from their dwelling places and the habitations of their Jewish kindred ; 
for in this world, no habitation, no place of abode, can be μένουσα, 
permanent, lasting. By profession, Christians, like the patriarchs, are 
seeking πατρίδα ἐπουράνιον ; and consequently πόλιν μέλλουσαν, an 
abode yet future, a residence in the world to come. 

(15) Av αὐεοῦ οὖν .... dem, by him, therefore, let us continually 
present to God the sacrifice of praise. Av αὐτοῦ, viz. by Christ, i.e. 
let us present such an offering, by him who is our great high-priest ; 
not a sacrifice of goats or bullocks, but a sacrifice of praise. In other 
words: “Let us, as Christians, offer praises to God for the blessings of 
the gospel vouchsafed to us.’ 

Τοῦτ᾽ ἔστι καρπὸν... ὀνόματι αὐτοῦ, that is, the fruit of our lips 
ascribing praise to him. ‘The expression sacrifice of praise (M24 
τη ΠῚ), is found in Lev. 7: 12. A phrase similar to fruit of the lips, 
is used by Hosea 14: 3, Hebrew ἼΩΒ OD 72, where the Sep- 
tuagint render it, καρπὸν χειλέων. "The meaning a our phrase is, 
what the lips utter, viz. when they ascribe praise (ὁμολογούντων) to 


HEBREWS XIII. 15—17. 535 


God. So Prov. 18: 20 ἢ 578, the fruit of the mouth, i.e. what aman 
says, or his words. 

Ὁμολογούντων, like the Hebrew "357, means to praise, celebrate, 
publicly acknowledge. °Ovoware is here, as commonly, a periphrasis 
for the agent to whom the name belongs, viz. God ; so that the sense is 
the same as τῷ Oew.—What follows cour ἔστι, is added by the writer, 
in order to guard against the apprehension of any one, that he was ex- 
horting them to offer the ritual sacrifices prescribed by the law. 

(16) Tis δὲ εὐποιΐας.... ϑεὸς, forget not, moreover, kindness and 
liberality ; for with such sacrifices God is well pleased. °EnidavOavo 
governs the Genitive εὐποιΐας and κοινωνίας. It was usual for the 
Jews, after making their thank-offerings, to invite the poor to the feast 
which followed; Jahn Archaeol. ILI. p. 396. So here, kindness and 
liberality are to follow the thank-offering of Christians; kindness toward 
the suffering and liberality toward the needy are acceptable sacrifices, 
or such as God is pleased with. 'The sentiment is: ‘ Duties like these 
Christianity requires; not the blood of bullocks and goats.’ As to δέ 
at the beginning of the verse, it is a sign of transition in the discourse, 
and may well be rendered moreover. 

(17) TeiGeods .... ὑπείκετε, obey your leaders and be subject to 
them. ᾿γουμένοις, in v.7 above, is clearly used in the sense of teach- 
ers, who were in fact the guides or leaders of the Christian community. 
If there be any difference between πείϑεσθϑε in this case and ὑπείχετε, 
the first has reference to positive obedience in regard to any directions 
given them ; the second prohibits any opposition to the teachers, in the 
measures which they might adopt to promote the improvement and the 
order of their religious community. 

Αὐτοὶ yao ἀγρυπνοῦσιν ἀποδώσοντες, for they watch over your souls, 
as those who must render an account. 'The γάρ here introduces a clause 
which shews the gravity and importance of the office of the ἡγούμενοι; 
which was a reason why cheerful obedience should be yielded to them. 
" Ayouivovet, watch; the image seems to be taken from the practice of 
shepherds, who watch with solicitude over their flocks in order that they 
may preserve them from the ravages of wild beasts. See the like im- 
agery employed respecting the prophet Ezekiel, Ezek. 3: 17.— Ὑπὲρ 
τῶν ψυχῶν ὑμῶν, i. 6. for you, DIDI. “Re λόγον ἀποδώσοντες, viz. 
to God, to whom “every one must give an account of himself ;” partic- 
ularly, every one put in a place of trust with regard to spiritual duties. 

“Ive μετὰ χαρὰς... τοῦτο, [so obey] that they may do this with 
joy, and not with grief; for this would be unprofitable to you. The 


536 neBrews XIII. 17—20. 


meaning, I now think after revision, is: ‘Obey them that they may per- 
form their duty of watching with joy, and not be grieved by perverse- 
ness and disobedience.’ The watching seems to be the main thing, in 
the clause which precedes ἵνα μετὰ x. τ. A. 

My στενάζοντες, lit. not groaning, i. 6. not grieving, the effect being 
put for the cause. It is only a negative form of expression here, de- 
signed to repeat the same idea as is conveyed by μετὰ χαρᾶς, and to 
render it more intense. “λυσιτελὲς yao, another negative expression, 
which means as much as to say: ‘ This would be very hurtful or noxious 
to you;’ i.e. should their Christian teachers be compelled to groan on 
account of unbelief and want of subjection in them, the consequences 
would be distressing to themselves as well as to their teachers. 

(18) Ππροσεύχεσϑε περὶ ἡμῶν. -. ἀναστρέφεσϑαι, pray for us ; for 
we trust that we have a good conscience, being desirous in all things to 
conduct ourselves uprightly. The request of the writer, that he may have 
an interest in their prayers, shews the friendly feelings and confidence 
which he entertained respecting them. He appeals to the sincerity and 
uprightness of his Christian deportment, as an evidence that he might 
claim a Christian sympathy for himself. Probably he has special refer- 
ence, in what he says respecting a good conscience, to the accusations of 
Judaizers, who looked on those Jews as having violated their con- 
science, who had ceased to obey the ritual law. “Ev πᾶσι x. t. 4. aug- 
ments, or renders intensive, the idea contained in the preceding clause. 

(19) Περισσοτέρως 02. ... ὑμῖν, and I the more earnestly request 
you to do this, in order that I may be speedily restored to you. This 
seems plainly to imply, that the writer was deterred from paying those 
a visit whom he addressed, by some adverse circumstances, viz. either 
by imprisonment, sickness, or some like cause. It also implies, that he 
is known to them, and they to him; for it indicates that he had formerly 
been among them. 

(20) Ὃ δὲ ϑεὸς... .᾿]ησοῦν, now may the God of peace, that raised 
from the dead our Lord Jesus, who by the blood of an everlasting cove- 
nant has become the great Shepherd of the sheep. Ὃ ϑεὸς τῆς εἰρήνης, 
the God of peace, i. e. the God who bestows happiness, auctor salutis. 
The Greek εἰρήνη, in the New Testament, like the Hebrew τσ, 
means every king of blessing or happiness. “O ἀναγαγῶν, who brought 
up, raised up, restored. Tov mocuéva.... τὸν μέγαν, comp. John 10: 
11, 14—I18. 

"Ev αἵματι διαϑήκης αἰωνίου some join with ἀναγαγών. But what 
can be the sense of raising Christ from the dead by the blood of the 


HEBREWS XITZ20—22. 537 


everlasting covenant ? Almighty power raised him from the dead ; not 
the blood of the covenant. Beyond all reasonable doubt, then, ἐν αἵμα- 
τὸ x. τ. 4. characterizes the great Shepherd, who “ laid down his life for 
the sheep,” John 10: 15. 1 Pet. 3: 25; and who sanctioned a new tes- 
tament or covenant by his blood, Heb. 9: 15—23. Matt. 26:28. The 
meaning is, that ‘the great Shepherd is provided with, or (so to speak) 
carries along with him, blood sanctioning a covenant which is of perpet- 
ual force.’ So in Heb. 9: 25, the high priest is said to have entered 
yearly into the most holy place ἔν ἀλλοτρίῳ αἵματι, i. 6. carrying with 
him the blood of bullocks and goats. Se also Wahl’s Lex. ἔν no 2. 
The phrase is plainly an allusion to the preceding discussion in chap. 
rx. I have rendered it so as to prevent a mistake, in regard to its true 
meaning. 

(21) Karagrioas ὑμᾶς ἐν παντὶ ἔργῳ ayadw, perfect you in every 
good work, i. e. make you in all respects to act wortbily of the Christian 
name, enable you in all respects as Christians to discharge your duties. 
Eig τὸ ποιῆσαι τὸ ϑέλημα αὐτοῦ, so that you may do his will, i. e. per- 
form all he requires. 

ΤΠοιῶν ἐν ὑμῖν... Χριστοῦ, working in you that which is pleas- 
ing to him, through Jesus Christ. That is, enabling you to perform all 
your Christian duties, which will be acceptable, εὐάρεστον ἐνώπιον 
αὐτοῦ, pleasing in his sight, 22> 250. Ava ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, i. 6. 
may he do this for Christ’s sake or through Christ. 

"Qu ἡ Ooka.... Any, to whom be glory forever and ever, Amen. 
The nearest antecedent to ᾧ, is Z Χριστοῦ; and to him, it seems to 
me, the doxology plainly belongs. Other examples of a similar nature, 
may be easily shewn; e.g. Rev. 1:6. 1 Pet. 4:11. 2 Pet. 3: 18. 
Doxologies introduced into the midst of a letter, in this way, are char- 
acteristic of the writings of Paul. 

(22) ITaguxola δὲ ὑμᾶς... .. παρακλήσεως, now 1 beseech you, 
brethren, to bear with this word of exhoriation; for I have written 
briefly to you. °Avéyw means, to bear patiently with, to receive or per- 
mit with kind feelings, to put up with. Aoyov παρακλήσεως is simply, 
exhortation. Some refer this only to the last part of the epistle; but 
the whole is intermixed with hortatory admonitions. The writer, after 
speaking so plainly, and giving warnings so awful, endeavours to win 
those whom he addresses to a patient toleration of his plain dealing. 

Aa βοαχέων, a usual Greek expression for briefly, within a short 
compass. ‘‘ But how,” it is asked, “could Paul say this, when this 
epistle is longer than any one of his, that to the Romans and the first 


538 HEBREWS XIII. 22—25. 


to the Corinthians excepted?” But is it to be supposed that those, 
whom the apostle now addressed, were acquainted with all of his other 
epistles, and that they would estimate the force of dva βραχέων by a 
comparison of our epistle with them? It is much more reasonable to 
suppose that the writer means to say, that he had written briefly, con- 
sidering the importance and difficulty of the subjects of which he had 
treated. And who wiil deny this? 

(23) Ttvmouere.... ἀπολελυμένον, know ye that [our] brother 
Timothy is sent away. See on the meaning of this, Introduction, § 19. 

Me ob... ὑμᾶς, with whom, if he speedily return, I shall visit 
you. Med ov, in company with whom. ᾿ Πὰν τάχιον ἔρχηται implies 
that Timothy was then absent. Of course, ἀπολελυμένον cannot well 
mean set at liberty. But if the meaning be as I have rendered it, then 
is the reason plain why Paul should say ἐὰν ἔρχηται. If Timothy was 
imprisoned at Rome, and set αὐ liberty there, why should the writer (at 
Rome) speak of his coming to him? If in some other place, how 
should he know of his liberation sooner than those could whom he ad- 
dressed ? 

(24) “4onacao%e navrag....ayiovg, salute all your leaders, and 
all the saints. '“Aonacaote means: ‘Present them with my kind 
wishes, and my regard for their welfare. “ious, those who are con- 
secrated to Christ, professing Christians, saints. 

᾿“σπαζονται.... .᾿Παλίας, they of Italy salute you; viz. the Ital- 
ans, see Introduct. ὃ 19. pp. 127, seq. This shews that the writer was 
in Italy, from which country he sends the kind greeting of Christians 
there. 

(25) “Hf χάρις μετὰ πάντων ὑμῶν, Aujy, grace be with you all, 
Amen; a frequent form of benediction in the apostolic epistles. Χάρις 
means divine favour or blessing. 

The subscription to this epistle runs thus: Πρὸς ᾿Πβραίους ἐγράφη 
ano τῆς ᾿Ππαλίας διὰ Τιμοϑέου. Like most of the other subscriptions 
to the epistles, it is of no authority. It is demonstrably erroneous here ; 
for how could Timothy write this epistle, when the author says, at its 
very close, that Timothy was then absent? The author of this sub- 
scription, one is tempted to think, had either read the epistle with very 
litle care, or with very little understanding of its contents. 


EXCURSUS I. 


1S \ ~ 
Heb. 1:2. 4v ov καὶ τοὺς αἰώνας ἐποίησε. 


There still remains a difficulty in this passage (in common with Eph. 
3:9),as to the form of expr ession, or rather as to the object of the assertion. 

In John 1: 8 it is said, πάντα δι᾽ αὐτοῦ [λόγου] ἐγένετο; swan a. (ον 8: Ὁ; 
δι᾿ οὗ [Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ] τὰ πάντα: in Col, 1: 15, ἐν αὐτῷ [Χριστῷ!] ἐχτίσ-- 
In τὰ πάντα; in Col. 1: 16, τὰ πάντα δι αὐτοῦ [Χριστοῦ]. mere ἔχτισται 3 
and in Heb. 1: 10—12, σὺ κατ᾽ ἀρχὰς... τὴν γὴν ἐθεμελίωσας, καὶ ἔργα 
τῶν χειρῶν σου εἰσὶν οἵ οὐρανοί. In all these passages, the creation of all 
things is simply aseribed to Christ ; just in the same manner as in Gen. 1: 
1, God is said to have created the heavens and the earth. 

The reader is desired specially to mark the mode of expression, in the 
passages above quoted ; as it is important for him to have a distinct cog- 
nisance of it, in order that he may perceive the difficulty which I am 
about to state. If the Scriptures had no where ascribed the creation to 
any other than to the Logos or Christ, and had employed in ascribing it 
to him only such language as that just quoted above, I cannot perceive 
that any interpreter of the sacred writings would have ever thought of as- 
cribing creation to any other than to the Logos simply ; I mean, that so 
far as the Scriptures are concerned, he never would have thought of as- 
cribing any sentiment to them, in respect to this subject, but that which 
assigns creatorship simply and solely to Christ or the Logos. There is, 
plainly, no difference in the mode of expression in the Bible, which asserts 
creatorship of God, or which asserts it of Christ. I must be understood 
of course to affirm this here, only of that class of texts which has just been 
quoted above. 

But there is another view of this subject which presents difficulties that 
cannot be surmounted without some effort... The Scriptures do indeed 
ascribe creatorship to the Logos; as we have seen. But do the sacred 
writers mean to ascribe it to him absolutely, in the highest sense, as his 
sole and independent act? Or do they represent him as creating by di- 
rection of the supreme God, and under his superintendence? In other 
words: Was the Logos the original author of the universe, or was he only 
the instrument by which the original author brought it into being ? 

Questions easily asked; but not answered without more difficulty than 


δ40 excursus I. ues. 1: 2. 


unreflecting minds may at first imagine. All is to be resolved by what 
the Scriptures have taught us. So one and all who profess any sacred 
regard for the Scriptures, must concede. What then do the Scriptures 
say, on this point of all points with respect to the great question about the 
real nature of Christ? Is he Creator by virtue of his own, or by virtue 
of a delegated power ὃ 

One thing it appears somewhat important to consider, before we ad- 
vance any farther in the investigation of this subject. If Christ were only 
the instrument, employed by the supreme God to bring the creation 
into existence, and to arrange it in its present order, the sacred wri- 
ters might assert, and might truly assert, that πάντα Ov αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, or 
ἐν αὐτῷ ἐχτίσϑη τὰ πάντα. It may be said with equal truth, that the 
church of St. Paul’s in London was built by Christopher Wren, and that 
it was built by the monarch who was the efficient cause or author of the 
structure, and by whose direction and at whose expense it was reared. 
Every day men familiarly employ language in this manner, ascribing the 
building of a structure either to the owner or to the architect, just as the 
nature of the case may require. 

Do the Scriptures ascribe creation then to Christ as architect merely, or 
as original author and deviser of the whole? In other words: Is that 
class of texts which ascribe creation to Christ, to be modified by admitting 
the idea, that creating by delegated power, i.e. (so to speak) as architect 
only, is meant; or are these texts to be understood in their highest sense, 
viz. in the sense of ascribing to Christ or the Logos original authorship, 
creating in the highest sense ? 

To prepare the way for an answer to this question, we must make 
inquiry respecting a second class of texts, such as those which I shall 
now subjoin. 

In Heb. 1: 2, the writer asserts, that Gop made all things By His Son ; 
and in Eph. 3:9, τῷ [Sem] τὰ πάντα κτίσαντι διὰ ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, Gop 
created all things By Jesus Curist. The latter clause, διὰ 1. Χριστοῦ, is 
indeed wanting in some Codices of good estimation, and is rejected by 
Griesbach from the text. But Knapp and Tittmann have inserted it, and 
the weight of authority seems to favour the admission of it. That the 
sentiment is not without a parallel, is clear from Heb. 1: 2. 

In these two cases, then, the assertion of the apostle is, that Gop made 
all things By his Son, or By Jesus Christ. 

Are these expressions, now, to be interpreted in such a way as to qual- 
ify all the first class of expressions ascribing creatorship to Christ, so 
that they must be understood as asserting nothing more than that he per- 
formed an instrumental or ministerial work only, and did not act as orig- 
inal author in bringing the universe into being? This is the simple ques- 
tion before us, divested of all extraneous constructions put upon either 
class of texts by opinions previously formed, or views adopted in conse- 
quence of reasoning @ priori. 

Whatever may be the answer to this question, it is evident that nothing 
of importance can depend, either in respect to Heb. 1:2, or Eph. 3: 9, 
on the word διά. It has often been asserted, that this preposition is em- 
ployed before the Gen. case, only to designate a secondary or instrumental 


Excursvs I. ues. 1: 2. 541 


cause. But this is altogether incorrect, both in respect to sacred and 
classical usage ; as even the common lexicons of the New Testament 
will shew. The cause, whether principal or instrumental, may be, and 
often is, designated by διά before the Genitive. 

Ae οὗ, then, might designate (by itself considered) the principal cause 
or original author of the worlds. This expression, however, does not in- 
volve the nodus of the difficulty in the case before us. The assertion is 
not here, that all things were made By (δια) the Son, but that GOD made 
all things BY him. In what manner now ought we to interpret this ? 

How the most noted commentators of the Greek church understood 
this difficult passage, is worth a serious inquiry. Chrysostom in explain- 
ing it says: “As the Father judgeth no one, but is said to judge by his 
Son, because he hath begotten him who is judge; so also he js said 
δημιουργεῖν δι᾿ αὐτοῦ ὅτι δημιουργὸν αὐτὸν ἐγέννησε, to create by him, be- 
cause he hath begotten him who is the Creator.” He then proceeds: “ Εἰ 
γὰρ αὐτοῦ αἴτιος ὃ πατὴρ, πολλῷ μᾶλλον τῶν δι᾿ αὐτοῦ γεγενγημένων, for if 
the Father is the cause of him, much more of the things made by him,’ Hom. 
I. in Epist. ad Heb. p. 15. Vol. XIE. Ed. Montfaucon. To the same pur- 
pose Theophylact: “ ᾿πειδὲ δὲ αἴτιος 6 πατὴρ τοῦ υἱοῦ, εἰκότως καὶ τῶν Ex 
αὐτοῦ γενομένων, seeing the Father is the cause of the Son, he must surely be 
of the things made by him,” Comm. in Heb. Tom. IL. p. 650. edit. Venet. 
1755. Here also the generation of the divine substance of the Son is as- 
serted, and the appeal is made to this doctrine as solving the difficulty of 
our text. But as the idea of SELF EXISTENCE, EXISTENCE UNCAUSED, and 
INDEPENDENCE, enters essentially into all our conceptions respecting a 
nature TRULY DIVINE, and is a sine qua non in all our apprehensions of a 
Creator, it is difficult for us to concede that the Father cun be the cause 
(αἴτιος) of the Son in his divine nature, without of course admitting that 
the Son (as divine) must be a dependent being; a δεύτερος ϑεός only, as 
many have called him. The explanation of these fathers, (who accerd 
with most of the ancient ecclesiastical writers), seems then only to re- 
move one difficulty by bringing forward another still greater. This ex- 
planation also is forced upon the text. ‘The writer of our epistle does not 
say, nor intimate, that ‘God created all things by his Son, inasmuch as he 
is the cause (αἴτιος, ἀρχή; ἃ5 Chrysostom calls him) of the Son.’ Can it be 
proper to force on the sacred writer a mode of metaphysical explanation, 
drawn from the philosophy of later ages, and foreign to the simplicity of 
the Scriptures ? 

In modern times, the mode of explaining our text is founded on what 
the systems of theology denominate, “ subordination in respect to the per- 
sons of the Godhead.” Thus Owen, on Heb. 1: 2, says: “ The joint- 
working of the Father and Son doth not infer any other subordination 
but that of subsistence and order ;” he means the hypostatical subordina- 
tion of persons, or order of their existence in the Godhead. The amount 
of the explanation adopted by him and many others, is, if I rightly un- 
derstand it, that God the Father, in the order of subsistence (not of time) 
preceding the Son, did, by the Son, create the worlds. But whether this 
explanation renders the text any more intelligible, may perhaps be well 
doubted. Especially so, as Owen (on the same passage) says: “The 

69 


542 Excursus I. ues. 1: 2. 


same individual creating act, is the work of the Father and the Son ; whose 
power and wisdom being one and the same undivided, so also are the works 
which proceed outwardly from them.” But if the power and wisdom of 
the Father and Son are not only one, but the sAmE UNDIVIDED ; on what, 
it may be asked, is founded the evidence, that a suBORDINATION of subsis- 
tence and order exists in the Godhead? If the aitributes of the Godhead 
are one and the same undivided, how can we come at the evidence of a 
physical or metaphysical susorprnaTion of subsistence or hypothesis 2 
Can such a subordination of subsistence be in any way known to us, ex- 
cept through the medium of the divine attributes? But these are affirm- 
ed to be one and the same undivided. Are we able, then, to shew what 
the distinction in divine essence is; or to define the mode in which the 
metaphysical essence of the uncrealed Being exists? Where is the pas- 
sage of Scripture which does this? Iam aware that an appeal is here 
made to those texts which mention Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in con- 
nection ; and particularly to the order in which they are mentioned. But 
of these texts there are only three. The first is in Matt. 28: 19, where 
the order just presented is observed. The second is in 2 Cor. 13: 18, 
where the Lord Jesus Christ is placed first. The third isin 1 John 5: 7; 
a text which, if not proved to be spurious, is at least thrown into a state 
so doubtful, that no considerate inquirer would at present think of ap- 
pealing to it as authority. Consequently, if the order in which Father, 
Son, and Spirit are mentioned in Matt. 28: 19, proves that the Son and 
Spirit are subordinate to the Father, then the manner in which they are 
mentioned in 2 Cor. 13: 13, will prove that the Father and Spirit are 
subordinate to the Son. How can that proof be valid, which establishes a 
contradiction ἢ 

Is then, we may well ask, the order of subsistence or hypostasis, (which 
is so much insisted on and so often appealed to by the schoolmen), a doc- 
trine taught by the sacred writers? Or rather, is it not one of the inven- 
tions of metaphysical philosophy, in order to remove apparent difficulties 
in the sacred text? Can any one point out the text of Scripture, in 
which God is presented in a physical or metaphysical manner, so that his 
essence or mode of subsistence (in itself considered) is offered to our con- 
sideration? If not; and if God only in his relations to us and the crea- 
tion around us; God as developed by his attributes and not as he is in 
himself or considered in respect to his internal essence, be revealed to us 
in the Bible; why not be contented with what the Scriptures have taught, 
without forcing sentiments upon the sacred writers which have been ex- 
cogitated only by metaphysicians of later days ? 

Owen himself, after going through a protracted consideration of our 
text, with that good sense and humility for which he was so conspicuous, 
adds: “It is not for us to inquire much into or after the reason of this 
economy and dispensation. We cannot by searching find out God, we 
cannot find out the Almighty unto perfection.” He means, that we cannot 
find out the economy of God’s creating the worlds by his Son, and the 
doctrine of subordination which is implicated in this. Happy would it 
have been for the interest of humble and candid inquirers, had this senti- 


Excursus I. ues. 1: 2. 543 


ment produced a proper influence over all the writings of Owen himself, 
and of many other eminent and excellent men! 

Will not most of the sober and intelligent inquirers of the present day a- 
gree in saying, that the nature or modus of the distinction in the Godhead 
is not an object of revelation, and that it is BeYonp the boundaries of hu- 
man knowledge? Let those now who write or teach respecting this 
momentous and awful subject, act consistently with such an avowal, and 
very much of the perplexity which is still occasioned by incautious asser- 
tions in regard to it, will be saved. 

The ground which Owen and so many others have taken to explain 
the phrase in Heb. 1: 2, is not satisfactory ; at least it is not so to me, be- 
cause it is built on the assumption that we know what is beyond the 
boundaries of human knowledge, and which, after much examination, 1 
am compelled to believe is not revealed in the Scriptures. 

The difficulty of our text, then, still remains. It would be presumption 
in me to promise a solution of it that will be satisfactory. But as the 
subject is so deeply interesting to all sincere and humble inquirers after 
the simple meaning of the sacred writers, I will venture to suggest a few 
considerations for reflection. 

Words are the signs of ideas. Words are human, i. 6. they belong to 
men; they are employed by them; and employed to designate, of course, 
the ideas which men have in their own minds. All these ideas are de- 
rived from sensation, reflection, or consciousness. The perceptible ob- 
jects without us, and the mental phenomena within us, are all the objects 
from which we can derive ideas through the medium of observation. Re- 
flection or reasoning upon the knowledge derived from these, may lead 
us to many new ideas; all of which, however, have their basis in the 
perception of objects external or internal. 

As words are merely arbitrary signs of ideas, so when employed in 
their original sense, they can never signify more than the things for which 
they stand. But words may be employed figuratively. When we come, 
by reasoning or reflection, to the knowledge and belief that there exists a 
Being who created the world; who is himself uncreated, eternal, and im- 
mutable ; who is not the object of perception by any of our senses, and 
for the description of whom none of the words of our language were ori- 
ginally formed; we are then obliged, in order to describe this Being, to 
apply to him words already in existence. But these words, it is plain, 
must in such a case be used nearly always in a sense more or less quali- 
fied, and differing from their original and Literal sense. Even in express- 
ing our ideas of the moral attributes of the Supreme Being, where there 
is a particular resemblance between him and man formed in his image, we 
do not in reality apply to the Divinity the most common words, in exact- 
ly the same sense in all respects as we do to men. When we say, He 
is wise, we do not mean that he acquired his wisdom, or possesses it, or 
exercises it, just in the manner that men do. We mean indeed, that 
there is in his wisdom something of the same nature as wisdom in men; 
something which selects the best ends, and chooses the best means of 
accomplishing them. But we do not mean to imply, that the acts of 


544 Excursus I. nes. 1: 2. 


the Divinity in selecting and choosing them are in all respects analogous 
to our own. 

We say, God is omnipresent. But we do not mean that he is present 
every where, in the same manner as human beings are present at any par- 
ticular place. We do not mean that actual physical presence of body or 
of substance, is necessary to his being present; or in other words, we do 
not mean that he is physically diffused through the Universe. We mean, 
that he is so present, that he can act any where or every where. Here 
is some analogy between him and us. But we must be’ physically pres- 
ent in order to act ; he cannot be so, inasmuch as he is not material. As 
to the manner of presence, then, how exceedingly different is his from our 
own ! 

We say, God is mighty. But when we speak of might in him, we do 
not associate with it the idea of firm sinew, of vigorous muscle, of robust 
body, of mature age, of perfect health ; all of which enter into our appre- 
hensions of consummate strength in man. We content ourselves with 
one simple point of analogy. God has real power to do whatever he de- 
sires to do, i.e. he is almighty. In this respect his might or strength is 
like that in men, i. e. it is power to accomplish the objects which strength 
or might is adapted to accomplish. But the might of the Deity infinitely 
excels that of men in degree. Here is one point of dissimilarity. It de- 
pends, too, on very different causes for its exercise. Here is another. 
But still, we do and may speak of power in God ; but who that has any 
reflection will say, that when we use this language in regard to God, we 
use it in all respects as we do when we apply it to men ? 

In the like manner we might proceed, in the consideration of every one 
of the divine attributes whether natural or moral. In regard to them all 
we should find, that there is only some one main point of analogy on which 
our assertion rests, when we apply human language to the description of 
God ; and that the manner in which he possesses or exercises any of his 
attributes, physiologically considered, is utterly beyond the boundaries of 
human knowledge ; and indeed that it was never meant to be an object of 
assertion, by any intelligent man who makes assertions in regard to the 
Supreme Being. 

If all this is well understood, we are now prepared to advance a step 
farther and see our way clear. Nothing can be more evident, (I might 
say self-evident), than that the eternal, uncreated, uncaused, independent, 
infinite, and self-existent God, must, as to his mode of essence and exist- 
ence, be unlike to temporary, created, caused, dependent, finite beings, 
with a derived existence. The very fact that God is as he has been just 
described, and man as he has been represented, necessarily forces this 
conviction upon us. Nothing can be plainer, then, than that all human 
language, formed at first merely to express human conceptions of finite 
and created objects, must in itself be altogether incompetent fully to des- 
cribe the Divinity. Nor could any language be formed by created beings 
adequate to this purpose ; for the plain reason, that no finite being could 
ever have a full conception of the infinite and uncreated Being. 

All our language, then, when used to describe God, must be consider- 
ed rather as qualified in some respects, than as simply applied to him in 


Excursus I. nes. 1: 2. 545 


its full and usual sense. Any description made by it, comes short of a 
Jull description of what is divine. ‘This has been shewn above. And 
could this be remembered and rightly applied in all our discussions re- 
specting the nature of the Supreme Being, it would save much of the 
difficulty and darkness which now embarrass this great subject. 

No assertion, indeed, can be made respecting God, which, if its lan- 
guage be understood and applied altogether in the same sense in which it is 
understood and applied when made of man, will not lead to contradiction 
or absurdity. This is evident from such plain cases as those already pre- 
sented ; viz. God is wise; God is omnipresent; God is mighty. If there 
is still any doubt here, take another case. God has knowledge. This is 
certainly true. But with us, knowledge can be obtained only through 
the medium of corporeal organs of sensation ; it is acquired successively ; 
in time ; within a limited space ; by the aid of memory, of comparison, 
of reasoning, of imagination; and when needed for use, it is summoned 
by recollection. When we say, ‘A man has knowledge,’ we insensibly 
connect all these things with these words. But if we say, ‘God has know- 
ledge,’ do we mean to imply that he has corporeal organs of sense ; that 
he gradually acquires ideas ; that, limited by time and space, he does this ; 
that he makes the effort of charging the memory with it; the effort of 
comparing, of reasoning, of imagination, of recollection, in any manner 
like us? Whoever says this is an anthropomorphite indeed ; such an one, 
too, as is not to be often met with (I would fondly hope) in these days of 
better illumination respecting the exalted and spiritual nature of the 
Divinity. 

From these obvious considerations, we may now proceed to examine 
the language of the sacred writers, in regard to the difficult point which 
suggested the subject of this Excursus. ‘Two things seem to be equally 
the object of assertion in the holy Scriptures. The first, that there is but 
one God; the second, that the Logos or higher nature which dwelt in Christ, 
is truly divine, or is truly God. Of the first, it would be superfluous to 
produce proofs here. The Old Testament is full of them; and the New 
as distinctly recognizes the same doctrine; see John 17: 3. 1 Cor. 8: 4, 
6. 1 John 5:20. Luke 18: 19. Matt. 19:17. <A formal proof of the sec- 
ond point would be out of place, in an exegesis designed only for the 
explanation of a particular phrase. It must suffice merely to advert to 
John 1:1. Rom, 9: 5. Titus 2: 13. 1 John 5: 20; the two former in- 
stances of which are so express, that no critical ingenuity can avoid the 
application of the term God to Christ; the third, when examined by the 
principles of grammar and of the usus loqguendi of the New Testament, is 
scarcely less certain; and the fourth has never, so far as I know, been 
satisfactorily explained away. 

But how can the Logos be truly God, and yet be with God, and be the 
agent By wHIcH God made the worlds? Here lies, it must be confessed, 
the very essence of all the difficulty which embarrasses so many minds ; 
and on this point we must now venture to dwell with some particularity. 

In the first place, our minds are embarrassed with the difficulty which 
such a statement respecting the Logos makes, in regard to the divine uni- 


δ40 Excursus I. nes. 1: 2. 


ty. Let us see if the source of this embarrassment cannot be distinctly 
pointed out. 

Trinitarians have been accustomed, for many centuries, to characterize 
the distinction in the Godhead by the word person. Whether this word 
was well or ill chosen, it is not my present object to inquire. Thus much 
is certain; many in Christian Jands have incautiously attached to this 
word, when used in respect to the Godhead, a sense nearly (if not quite) 
the same as they attach to it in common usage. Not a few theologians and 
critics have, indeed, protested against such an application of the word ; and 
some of those, who have been most eminent for their steadfast adherence to 
the belief that the Saviour possesses a nature truly divine, have raised their 
voice high against such an application of it; but unfortunately for the 
cause of truth, this voice has been listened to only by some of those who 
were friendly to a belief in the doctrine of the Trinity. Others, with dif- 
ferent views, have commonly thought proper to pay no attention to such 
a protest; but to take advantage, in their efforts to oppose the doctrine of 
the Trinity, of the arguments which might be put into their possession by 
taking the word person in its usual acceptation. 

If now we speak of the Logos as a person; and of God the Father asa 
person ; and attach to the word person the sense that is usual in common 
parlance ; then it is certain, indeed, that the difficulty which lies in the 
way of supposing the Logos to be truly God, and yet consistently main- 
taining the divine unity, is altogether insurmountable. “ Person is an 
intelligent substance ;” (if I may use the language of philosophy for the 
sake of definition). ‘ Substance” (as defined by Baumgarten, a divine of 
the old school, of high orthodoxy, and of great metaphysical acuteness) 
“is that which can exist by itself, or unassociated with another thing ;” 
Substantia est id, quod potest existere ita, ut ponatur extra allerum, Metaphys. 
191. 136. 231—235. As defined by another logician and philosopher, fa- 
mous for nice distinctions of definition, “Substance is that which exists, 
or may be supposed to exist, although it is connected with nothing else ;” 
Substantia est id quod est, aut esse posse putatur, etiamsi nulli alii sit junc- 
tum, Ulrichs’ Inst. Log. et Metaphys. § 316. To apply the word person, 
then, in the sense which such definitions necessarily afford, to the distine- 
tions in the Godhead, inevitably leads to Tritheism, and of course to a 
virtual rejection of the divine unity. We may say in words that we 
believe God is one, although we assert that there are three persons in the 
Godhead as just defined; but nothing is plainer, than that in such a case 
we believe merely in a specific unity, not in a numerical one. Specific 
unity, however, might admit three thousand or three million divine beings, 
and yet consistently maintain that there is but one God ; that is, it might 
do so, provided we allow the advocates of it that there is a yévog ϑεῖον, 
genus divinum, or genus of divinities. Human nature, for example, is one ; 
i.e. there is but one nature of man; yet the individuals of this genus are 
without number. That such is not the unity which the Scriptures assert 
of the Godhead, [ need not stop to prove. 

He who consistently holds the numerical unity of the Godhead, must, be- 
yond all doubt, protest against the application of the word person to desig- 
nate the distinctions of the divine nature, if that word is to be taken in its 


Excursus I. nepg. 1: 2. 547 


logical or metaphysical sense. For however one may hold to words and 
Jorms of expression, it is plain, that while he makes such an application 
of the word person to the Godhead, he in fact admits Tritheism, although 
he may be far from any design or any consciousness of doing so. 

The views which have now been presented, may serve to explain the 
reason why many find it so difficult, or (as they think it) impossible, to 
admit the true divinity of the Logos. ‘How can he,’ say they, ‘be the 
second person in the Godhead, and yet be one with the first? How can 
he be with God, and yet be God himself 2’ 

And truly it must be confessed that this cannot be, provided the words 
in question are to be construed altogether more humano, i. 6. in their logic- 
al, common, usual acceptation. But is it analogous, is it proper, to con- 
strue them thus? Does it develope a spirit of candid and fair inquiry, to 
insist that these terms shall be construed altogether according to their com- 
mon acceptation, when there is not, as we have seen above, a single term 
significant of a divine attribute, which we ever construe in such a manner ? 

If this be correct, (and I may venture to say it cannot be reasonably 
disputed), then I see no very urgent reason why the use of the word per- 
son, in order to designate a distinction in the Godhead, should be rejected. 
It is true, it is not a word which is applied by the Scriptures to the God- 
head, (for ὑπόστασις in Heb. 1: 3 does not mean person); it is also true, 
that many well-meaning individuals have been misled by it in regard to 
their conceptions respecting the Deity, and that those who reject the doc- 
trine of the Trinity have made great use of this word in order to render 
the sentiments of Trinitarians obnoxious: so that one might almost wish 
the word had never been introduced into ecclesiastical usage. But when 
the matter is examined to the bottom, it will be found that objections of a 
similar nature might be urged against the application of any anthropopa- 
hic expressions to God. The simple and the untaught may be easily 
misled by them ; and often are so. How many, for example, believe that 
God is really angry, repents, etc., more humano, because such expressions 
are found in the Scriptures? Shall all such expressions be laid aside, be- 
cause they are misunderstood or perverted? And if so, where shall we 
stop? for we have seen that all language which is used in order to describe 
God, must be taken, of course and by necessity, in a qualified sense. The 
abuse of a thing is no valid argument against the use of it. ‘Those then 
who believe in the existence of a real distinction in the Godhead, in case 
they are careful to protest against the literal application of the word per- 
son to designate this, may still continue to employ the word if they think 
best; for it is exceedingly difficult (as all will confess who have thoroughly 
studied this subject) to exchange it for a better one, or for one that will so 
well correspond with the representations of the Bible in regard to such a 
distinction. Certainly no term can be substituted for it, which will not, 
in like manner, be obnoxious to more or less objections. 

If those who reject all distinction in the Godhead, will persevere still 
in maintaining, that to say there are three persons in the Godhead necessa- 
rily involves the doctrine of Tritheism ; and if they will thus continue, at 
all events, to explain the word person according to its literal and common 
meaning, and to charge upon those who believe in the doctrine of the 


548 Excursus I. ues. 1: 2. 


Trinity the absurd consequences derivable from this; then they may in- 
deed display their strength of attachment to their own views, and perhaps 
their skill in logomachy ; but where is that candour and fairness toward 
those who differ from them, which is becoming in all who are earnestly 
seeking to know the simple doctrines of the Scriptures ? 

Suppose now, when one says that God possesses knowledge, he should be 
asked in the tone of reproof: ‘What! Do you mean to assert that God 
has physical organs of perception ; that he studies; that he charges his 
memory with ideas; that he compares; that he deduces conclusions ; that 
he summons them up by the effort of recollection when he needs them ? 
Men do all this, who have knowledge ; but can all this be predicated of 
God?’ Would any considerate man think these questions very reasonable 
ones; or feel himself compelled by them to abandon his assertion, that 
God has knowledge ? 

Apply now the principle concerned in this case, to the idiom in ques- 
tion. The apostle John says, that the Logos was with God; was with him 
in the beginning ; and repeats this asseveration, John 1: 1,2. Christ says 
of himself, that he was with the Father and partook of his glory, before the 
world had an existence, John 17:5. In another place, John asserts that 
the Son was with the Father, 1 John 1: 2; and the Saviour speaks of the 
Father as loving him before the foundation of the world, John 17: 24. He 
declares that he came out from the Father, when he came into the world, 
John 16: 28. In accordance with this idiom Paul says, that God created 
all things by Jesus Christ, Eph. 3:93; and that he made the worlds by his 
Son, Heb. 1:2. Now if such texts are to be considered as altogether 
insulated, and the principles of analogy in other cases are not to be applied 
to the language which they exhibit, then the conclusion that Christ or the 
Logos is a being wholly distinct from God the Father, is clear and inevita- 
ble. But are these texts to be construed in an absolute and isolated sense, 
and without any reference at all to others which relate to the same con- 
nection between Father and Son? Certainly not, if we follow the anal- 
ogy of exegesis in all other cases. When John says that the Logos was 
with God, he tells us at the very same time, (as if to guard us against errone- 
ously concluding that he is a distinct and separate and different substance), 
that he was God. When the Saviour spake of the glory which he had 
with the Father before the world was, he had just been addressing the 
Father as the only true God, John 17: 5, 33 so that no one could ration- 
ally suppose him to assert the existence of more than one true God. If 
Paul tells us that God created all things by Jesus Christ, and that he made 
the worlds by his Son, he also tells us, that Christ is God over all and blessed 
forever, Rom. 9:5; and that he is the eternal and immutable creator of 
the heavens and the earth, Heb. 1: 10—12. Christ tells us that he who 
hath seen him hath seen the Father, John 14:9; that he is in the 
Father, and the Father in him, 14:10; and that all which the Father 
hath is his, 16: 15. Now whatever diversity between the Father and Son 
the first class of texts above quoted may seem to imply, it is plain that it 
is not of such a nature as to destroy the unity of the Godhead. Whatever 
the distinction in the Godhead may be, it is not that which makes plural- 
ity; it is not that which makes personality in a logical or merely human 


Excursvs I. nes. 1: 2. 549 
sense. But can we say what it is? Plainly not. A positive description 
is no where given in Scripture; and surely it would ill become us to pre- 
tend that we understand, without revelation, the uncreated substance and 
modus existendt of the Godhead. All that we can understand by such 
expressions as the Logos’ being with God, becoming flesh and dwelling among 
us, and God’s making the world by him, is, that there is a distinction in the 
Godhead of some kind, which amounts to more than merely the different 
modes or ways in which the Divinity discloses himself to us. [{ is some- 
thing which is not merely nominal or logical ; which is not to be predi- 
cated merely of the external relations of the Godhead. It is something 
which renders it possible to affirm, in some sense or other analogous to 
the usual meaning of the words, that the Son was with God, that God cre- 
ated the world by him, that he became incarnate, οἷς. ἢ all which cannot be 
predicated, in the same sense, of the Father. Yet all this must be true in 
such a modified sense, as not to infringe on the real unity of God. 

Who now will undertake to decide what metaphysical distinctions or 
relations there may be in the uncreated substance of the eternal God, and 
what are consistent, and what not consistent, with his unity? None, we 
may believe, but those who are either presumptuous, or destitute of cool 
and sober reflection. But although the nature of the distinciion in the 
Godhead be truly beyond the boundaries of human knowledge, (as plain- 
ly it is), yet the fact that there is a distinction of some kind or other, may be 
revealed. Indeed that it is revealed, seems to be a necessary consequence 
of allowing the two classes of texts above quoted to be true, and to modi- 
fy each other. On the one hand, distinction is not to be so held or as- 
serted as to infringe upon unity; and on the other, wnity is not to be so 
held or asserted as to preclude the possibility of any distinction. Who 
has found out the Almighty unto perfection? Are not all analogies from 
created, finite, temporal objects, utterly incompetent to convey adequate 
ideas of the infinite and uncreated God? Must they not from their very 
nature be so? Yet men will insist on applying all the analogy which 
language imports, to God in the same way as to themselves. We always 
conceive, for example, of different beings which have a finite nature, as 
separated by space, as existing in time, and as having their own peculiar 
properties. When therefore we read of the Logos as being with God, we 
very easily associate with this expression the analogy of one human being 
in company with another, or of some created thing associated with anoth- 
er that is a separate one. ‘Then we are ready to ask: How can the Lo- 
gos be God? One cannot, indeed, shew that he is so, if we will insist 
that all language is to be applied to him, simply according to the common 
application of it to human objects. But is such an application to be 
made? Can it be? John says, he is God; and Paul says, he is God 
over all. ‘Then human language, of course, can only approximate to a de- 
scription of him; the literal and full application of it, in designating 
his relations to the Godhead, is out of all question. Only very inade- 
quate views of this subject, or the spirit of party, or that of disputation, 
can maintain the propriety of such an application. 

We may come then to the conclusion, that when the apostle Paul as- Ὁ 
serts that God made the worlds by his Son, there is nothing in reality more 

70 


550 Excursus I. nes. 1: 2. 


difficult in this expression, than there is in those expressions which are 
found in the gospel and first epistle of John. Whatever may be the 
economy of the Godhead to which Paul refers, it is not one which de- 
nies, or virtually takes way, either the unity of the same, or the supreme 
creatorship (so to speak) of the Son; for this he most fully asserts, in 
Heb. 1: 10—12. 

We have seen by the passages above cited, that the apostles John and 
Paul accord in their views, both with respect to the distinction and the 
unity of the Godhead, and to the divinity of the Saviour. As they held 
these truths in such a manner that they harmonized with each other, so 
ought we to do; and consequently, we should not give such an explana- 
tion to the one as to destroy the other. In a particular manner we ought 
to be guarded against making any assertions or definitions, which are 
built on the assumption that we know in what the distinctions of the 
Godhead consist. Some of the efforts of the school-divines on this awful 
subject, are not only contradictory to each other, but their views are incon- 
sistent with the true nature of a divine and self-existent Creator, as well as 
repulsive to the feelings of a cautious and impartial inquirer, who seeks 
after ideas of thing's and not after mere words. 

The suggestions now made, respecting the necessity of feeling that all 
our language when applied to describe the Deity must be restricted to a 
modified sense, are strengthened by an examination of the descriptions in 
general of God, as given in the Bible by the sacred writers. ‘They repre- 
sent him, for example, as angry; as repenting; as being grieved at the 
heart ; as laughing at the efforts of the wicked; as mocking at their ca- 
lamities ; as rejoicing; as weeping; as avenging himself; as possessing 
eyes, hands, feet, and all the parts of the human body ; as descending and 
conversing with men; as appearing to Abraham, Moses, and many oth- 
ers; as ascending; as riding in the whirlwind and the storm; as walking 
on the sea; as shooting with a bow and arrows; as whetting his glitter- 
ing sword, and bathing it in blood ; as clothed with the habiliments of a’ 
warrior, or in those of royal magnificence; in a word, as possessed of all 
the sympathies, and exhibiting all the phenomena, of a man. The most 
unpractised reader of the Bibie knows this is true, and that more or less 
of it is to be found on nearly every page of it. Yet who that has any ra- 
tional views of the true spiritual nature of God, ever supposes that any 
part of all this language is to be applied merely in its primary and literal 
sense to God? Still, in every case of this nature there is some real mean- 
ing in the language employed by the sacred writers. There is some 
point of analogy between the literal meaning of the language as applied 
to men, and the qualified meaning of it as applied to God. When God is 
said to repent, the meaning is, that he acts in a manner analogous to that 
in which men act when they repent, i. e. he changes the course which he 
was pursuing. When God is said to whet his glittering sword, to bend 
his bow, and to take hold on vengeance, then he does that which is like what 
men do to their enemies, i. e. he punishes, he inflicts distress, he makes re- 
tribution for crimes. In all these and such like cases, the manner in 
which the divine Being acts is not intended to be described ; but the fact 
that he does act, is what is asserted by the use of such language as has Just 
been mentioned. 


Excursus I. wep. 1: 2. 551 


No one can justly say, then, that there is no real meaning in such lan- 
guage when applied to God, unless it is taken in its primary and literal 
sense. Such an affirmation would betray profound ignorance of the na- 
ture of language as used in a qualified sense, and also of the true charac- 
ter of God. For if all such language respecting him is indeed to be Liter- 
ally construed, then have the Scriptures cast no additional light on the 
spiritual nature of God, and he is still to be regarded as the heathen rep- 
resented him to be, viz. as one altogether like ourselves. 

If it should be thought that the class of expressions which are men- 
tioned in the two preceding paragraphs, are essentially different from 
those before considered, viz. such as God knows, God is mighty, etc., an 
examination of the whole matter will convince any one of his mistake. 
It is true, the former class of expressions are more obviously figurative. 
We at once perceive, that, as God is not flesh and blood, they cannot be 
literally applied to him; i. 6. we abstract from these expressions whatey- 
er pertains to modus, whatever is berrowed from our earthly material 
structure. But is it not equally true, that whatever pertains to modus is, 
in the other case also, to be in the same manner abstracted ? For exam- 
ple ; when God is said to know, does it any more imply the human modus 
of knowing, than it implies the human modus of acting, when he is said 
to lift up his arm in order to smite an offender? Most clearly not. The 
truth is, when sifted to the bottom it will be found that there is no essen- 
tial difference as to the qualified nature of the language in both cases. In 
both you abstract the modus, before you apply it to God. In the one 
case, indeed, the metaphor is taken from our corporeal parts; in the other, 
from our mental powers; but this makes no difference in respect to the 
thing itself, except that in the former case the language is more obviously 
and strikingly to be qualified than in the latter. 

If then such expressions as those which have been considered, and all 
others which designate the natural or moral attributes of God, are, and 
must be, understood in a modified sense; then why is not the assertion 
that the Logos was with God, to be understood in a similar way? The 
manner in which one created substance, as contemplated by us, is with 
another, can surely afford no perfect analogy to explain the manner in 
which the self-existent and uncreated Logos is with God. And yet the 
most specious of all the objections to the true divinity of the Logos, are 
grounded on the full and literal application to him of such language. 

One word with respect to the unity itself of the Godhead. Is not this 
term, as well as all the others applied to the Divinity, to be taken in a 
modified sense? If any one will, for a moment, put aside the veil of 
words, and come to the simple contemplation of things, he will probably 
find himself much less able to tell what unity in the Godhead is, than he 
suspected. In the substances around us, proximity of parts united by 
some common influence, or subserviency to some common purpose, is 
essential to our idea of unity. A tree is one, because its several parts are 
intimately connected, are under an influence common to all, and are sub- 
servient to a common purpose, i. e. the producing of fruit or foliage. Oth- 
er trees, indeed, of the like kind, are under the like influence, and subserve 
the like purpose ; but the want of an intimate proximity of parts to the 


552 Excursus I. ngs. 1: 2. 


tree in question, is the ground why they are not one with it. One man, 
in distinction from many, consists of a corporeal frame thus intimately 
connected, and animated by an intelligent spirit. Every thing that has 
material parts is numerically one, only by an intimate conjunction of those 
parts. 

δ when we apply the term unity to spirit, and ask: What is that in 
which the unity of spirit consists? it will be found more easy to ask than 
to answer the question. A spirit we do not suppose to have parts; cer- 
tainly not in such a sense as matter has, i. e. it is not divisible. God has 
no parts; he is a spirit. Proximity of parts does not constitute his unity. 
Nor baie we, nor can we have, any proof that homogeneousness or sim- 
plicity of essence or substance constitutes his unity. For, in the first 
place, we have no distinct idea of what the essence or substance (if I may 
be allowed the expression) of the Godhead consists; and of course, we 
cannot predicate physical homogeneousness or simplicity of that respect- 
ing which we have no distinct idea. In the second place, as the most 
insignificant portion of matter has never yet, so far as we know, received 
an ultimate analysis from the highest efforts of chemical philosophy, so 
that any one can venture to affirm what its simple substance is, and confi- 
dently declare that it is homogeneous, and one only in regard to its compo- 
nent elements ; will any one venture to say, that he has analyzed the di- 
vine substance, (I speak it with reverence), so as to be able with certainty 
to predicate physical homogeneous simplicity and unity of the elements 
which compose it? How is it possible for us to make affirmations about 
the nature of that substance, of which, by our own confession, we are al- 
together ignorant? A man who at the present day should do thus in any 
other science than that of theology, would be regarded as a mere visiona- 
ry, or as a bigoted enthusiast for the party to which he belonged. 

The qualities, then, of the substance or essence of the Godhead, or (to 
speak in other terms) the physical or metaphysical nature of the Deity, is 
that of which we are profoundiy ignorant. We know that there is one 
omnipotence, one omniscience ; one Creator and governor of the universe ; 
but do we know the internal relations and modifications of his substance ? 
Confessedly not. How then can we with propriety reject the testimony 
of revelation, that the Logos is God, because of objections which our phi- 
losophy deduced from a priort reasoning may raise, in respect to the unity 
ofthe divine stbstance; all of which objections, too, are deduced from 
analogies that are taken merely from material and cor. oneal things? =‘Tru- 
ly if the nature of these objections be examined, and the whole matter 
sifted to the bottom, by putting mere words aside for a while and looking 
at things, it will be found that we have less reason to confide in such ob- 
jections than some are ready to imagine, 

The Christian who holds that the Logos is truly divine, (and of course 
that he is self-eristent, eternal, and independent), holds to what Paul and 
John seem very plainly to assert ; and be who admits that there is a dis- 
tinction in the Godhead, (the nature of which is not developed, but which 
is implied in such expressions as those in Heb. 1: 2. John 1: 1, 2), stands 
on scriptural ground, and on that too which is proof against all assault. 
For how can it be proved that there is not a distinction in the Godhead, 


Excursus I. nen. 1: 2. 550 


the natnre of which we confessedly do not understand ? If it be asked: 
How can it be proved there is one? The answer is: By a revelation. If 
such a revelation has been made, (and the texts cited above, not to mention 
others, seem plainly to imply it), then we are either bound to receive it, 
or to reject the authority of the sacred writers. Consistency must oblige 
us directly and fully to do the one or the other. 

As for all the illustrations attempted by divines, ancient and modern, of 
the physical nature of the distinctions in the Godhead, drawn from finite, 
material, created objects, the bare mention of them is enough to shew that 
they must be imminently exposed to error. Who can draw any perfect 
analogies between created and uncreated beings, in regard to their physical 
nature and properties? And all the terms, and names, and dogmas, which 
have resulted merely from such comparisons, may be rejected in a mass, 
salud fide et salvd ecclesid ; and they ought to be rejected, if we would not 
expose the awful mystery of the doctrine in question to doubts, if not to 
rejection, by men who are not influenced in their opinions by tradition, 
nor by the authority of the schools. When the simple Biblical view of 
this subject is embraced, and the simple position of the sacred writers 
maintained, without adding to it any explanations or definitions merely of 
our own invention, then may more unity of opinion on this subject, be ex- 
pected among professed Christians ; and then will truth be less exposed to 
assault, from those who reject it. 

We come, then, at the close of this protracted discussion, to the conclu- 
sion, that language like that in Heb. 1: 2, is subject to such modifications 
as other parts of the Scriptures and the nature of the case demand. In 
other words, we can rationally apply it to God and to Christ, only ina 
qualified sense ; just as all other language must be applied to them, most 
obviously, in a qualified sense. Whatever depends on modus, must be ab- 
stracted. Facts are aimed at by the sacred writers, not the modus of them. 

The expression in our text, therefore, according to every just law of 
exegesis, must be so taken as to accord with other assertions of the apos- 
tle and other inspired writers. But these do not permit us to attribute 
the act of creating to any but God himself, i.e. the supreme God. ‘To 
this act the ultimate appeal is made by the sacred authors, in order to dis- 
tinguish the supreme God from all that is called God in heaven or on 
earth ; see Rom, 1: 20. Ps. 19:1. Acts 14:15. Is. 40: 25, 26. 42:5—8. 
43:15. 44: 94. 45:18. 46:9. 48: 12,13, ete. Nor is it possible for the 
human mind to appeal to any decisive evidence of supreme Divinity, un- 
less the act of creation be such. The Deity can be known at all only by 
the development of his attributes; and no development ever made, or (so 
far as we can see) none which can be made, is so highly and decisively 
characteristic of “eternal power and Godhead,” as the act of creation. 
So thought Paul, Rom 1: 20; and so, until the whole structure of my 
mind is changed, must I think. 

The Being then who created the world, is Gop to me; and from the 
nature of my moral and mental constitution, he must be so. This is a 
point that admits of no explaining away. If therefore Christ created the 
world, he must be what John asserts him to be, GOD; and what Paul 
asserts him to be, GOD OVER ALL. But in what sense God can be 


554 Excursus I. nes. 1: 2. 

said to have created the world by Christ, i. e. what is the eract meaning of 
a phrase, which refers to an internal distinction (as it would seem) in the 
divine nature, is beyond the reach of our conception as to modus. Enough 
that it has matter of fact for its ground, viz. that the Logos was tuly 
Creator. Enough that creatorship is so spoken of in the Bible, that we 
are not at liberty to predicate it of any dependent being. This point 
fixed, (and if it be not, we have no decisive evidence on which we can 
rely, that Jehovah is God), the sense of Heb. 1: 2, and of other like pas- 
sages, is to be understood in a qualified way, so as not to gainsay what is 
plain and certain. This is as much as can be said with safety ; for the 
subject to which such passages refer, is plainly one that, in most repects, 
is beyond the boundaries of human knowledge. 

That the subject is not without difficulties, even in its Scriptural posi- 
tion, is what every candid and unprejudiced man will be very ready to 
confess. But it is a noble remark of Garve (on Cicero de Offic. Lib. I. 
p. 70): “'The better part of men do not, because they may discover a few 
difficulties which they cannot solve, regard the whole system of acknowl- 
edged truth as uncertain. They can be aware that there is some dark- 
ness mingled with light in their knowledge, without being terrified by the 
one or blinded by the other.” 

The effort to explain every thing, to define every thing, has led to the 
unhappy consequence of introducing scholastic phraseology and defini- 
tions in respect to every thing about the doctrine of the Trinity. This 
not only bewilders many, but makes others believe that they have a 
knowledge of things, because they can use abundance of technical words ; 
while the opposition of another class, who can detect the inconsistency and 
emptiness of these terms, is excited against the whole doctrine. The day 
however is coming, if not already arrived, when mere names will be re- 
garded by the church as of little worth, provided they do not convey in- 
telligible ideas. For the good of the church also it may be hoped, that 
the time is very near when men will learn to stop in making their inqui- 
ries, wrrHtn the boundaries of human knowledge, and neither to assert nor 
deny that about which they know nothing and can know nothing. Well was 
it said by a very sensible writer: “ He who will not undertake to explain 
what is incomprehensible, but will seek to know where the boundaries of 
this begin, and simply acknowledge them when and where he finds them 
—he does most to promote the genuine knowledge of truth by man.”* 


* Jacobi, GOtting. Recens. St. 197. anno 1785. 


Excursus II. ues. 1: 2. ' 


φι 
On 


EXCURSUS II. 
Heb. 1:2. Ad οὗ καὶ τοὺς αἰῶνας ἐποίησε. 


It has been argued, that the expression God made the worlds by his Son, 
necessarily contains an implication of eternal Sonship or eternal generation ; 
in other words, that Christ is the Son of God in his divine nature, and not 
simply considered as mediator. “How,” it is asked, “ could God make 
the worlds by his Son, if he had no Son until four thousand years after 
the world was created ἢ The answer, however, is easy. How could 
“ God create all things by Jesus Christ?” And yet the apostle asserts 
that he did, in Eph. 3:9. Is not Jesus Christ the appropriate name of 
the incarnate Logos? Of the Saviour as possessing our nature? How 
then could the world have been created by him? The answer is, that in 
both cases, and in all similar cases, the words which describe the person 
are used as proper names, and thus come to designate the whole person in 
whatever relation he is considered. The Logos who created the world, 
was united with the human nature of Jesus—with the human nature of 
the Son of God, i.e. the Messiah. And as the names Jesus Christ and 
Son of God, are evidently terms used to describe the complex person of the 
Saviour: so it is altogether accordant with the usages of language to say, 
that ‘God created the world by Jesus Christ, or ‘by his Son; meaning, 
in either case, by the Logos or higher nature united to Christ or the Son. 
So we say, Abraham is dead, meaning that part of him which is mortal is 
dead ; 4braham ts alive, meaning that part which is immortal lives. We 
say too, Abraham was born in Ur of Chaldea; yet he did not receive this 
name until ninety nine years after his birth there, for before this last pe- 
riod he was called Abram, not Abraham, Gem. 17:1, 5. This is analogical 
with saying, God made the worlds by his Son ; although the Logos did not 
receive the name Son, (except by prophetic anticipation), until he appear- 
ed in the flesh. Nothing is more common than to employ proper names, 
when once acquired, in order to designate ithe whole person, in all its dif- 
ferent stages or modes of existence, without any reference to the time or 
manner of acquiring the proper name. At all events, if to say that God 
made the worlds by his Son, necessarily proves that the Logos was then a 
Son when he made the worlds ; the same reasoning will of course prove, 
that he was then Jesus and Christ also, i.e. a complex person having a 
human nature, because it is said, God created all things by Jesus Christ. 

In the same manner, the expression of our Saviour, What if ye should 
see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? John 6: 62, would 
prove, if the reasoning on which we are animadverting be correct, that the 
SON OF MAN existed in heaven before he dwelt among men, i. e. that the 
Word made flesh did not assume this incarnate condition at the birth of 
Jesus, but possessed such a nature before, viz. while in the heavenly 
world. Now as neither fact justifies such a supposition, nor the usages of 
language demand it, so the doctrine of eternal Sonship can never be 


556 Excursus II. neg. 1: 2. 


built upon a principle of reasoning, which stands upon such a very insuf- 
ficient basis. 

In regard to the appeal which is made so often and with so much con- 
fidence to the early Fathers of the church, as avowing and defending this 
doctrine, it is evidently founded in mistake, or in a partial and imperfect 
investigation of their sentiments. The amount of the speculations of ear- 
ly ecclesiastical writers on this subject, may be summed up in the follow- 
ipg propositions 3 viz. (1) Originally: or at first, God was alone (μόνος), yet 
so that the Logos was in him (ἐν αὐτῷ, ey Ose deni) as his reason or intel- 
lect. (2) In this sense they of course affirmed the Logos to be eternal, in- 
asmuch as God never could have been without reason or understanding. 
In this sense also, they understood the Logos to have been concerned with 
the creation of the world; for surely the world was created by wisdom 
and intelligence. (3) As to the generation of the Logos, it took place 
when the world was created ; so Tertullian expressly says: Tune igttur 
ipse Sermo speciem et ornatum suum sumit, sonum et vocem, CUM DICIT 
Deus, Frar tux. Haec est nativitas perfecta Sermonis, dum ex Deo pro- 
cedit ; conditus ab co primum ad cogitatum in nomine Sophiae, Lib. cont. 
Prax. p. 200, Tom. II. This they strenuously contended for, on the 
on that the words which proceeded from God, when he said, γε 
ὌΡΟΣ be light, must be substantia, οὐσία, not “ ἀπ απο inane vel vacuum.” 
(4) The Logos thus generated was not merely like to God, but a com- 
munion of ‘the same nature and attributes existed between them. In his 
assuming personality, there was no ἀποτομή abscission, no μερισμός divi- 
sion, in respect to the divine substance, but he was a φῶς &% φωτὸς ἀϊδίου, 
a light kindled up by light and partaking of the same attributes. (5) This 
community of nature constituted the basis of the unily which exists in the 
Godhead. 

So much for speculation on this awful subject. The reader can judge 
for himself, whether any advance is made by all this toward explaining 
the doctrine of the Trinity, or of the generation of the Son. If he calls 
in question the correctness of this representation, as it regards the early 
fathers, I refer him for ample satisfaction, to a clear and masterly state- 
ment of the whole, with abundant proofs in the way of quotation from the 
early fathers, contained in Keilii Opuscula, p. 483 seq.; also Martini, 
Geschichte des Logos. 


EXCURSUS III. 


ε ΠῚ ἰ ν᾿ > t ~ ἌΡΗΣ \ ~ 
Heb. 1:3. “Os ὧν ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης καὶ χαραχτὴρ τῆς ὑποσ- 
͵ > ~ 
TUOEWS αὐτοῦ. 


What can be plainer, than that the description in Heb. 1: 3 necessari- 
ly applies to the incarnate Logos, to the Son of God as disclosing in our 
nature the Father to the world of mankind? <A multitude of analogous 


Excursus IIf. nes. 1: 8. 557 


texts might easily be appealed to; but those quoted in the commentary 
are sufticent. It is plainly the manifestation of God which the Son 
makes, that occasions the Son’s being described as ἀπαύγασμα and χαρακ- 
to" both of which imply, of course, what is visible and perceptible. But 
the Logos before the incarnation, while simply divine, was neither visible 
nor perceptible. Nor can we, with any propriety of language, speak of 
him in that state in which he was simply the invisible God, as being only 
the image of God, or only the radiance of his splendor, or merely the like- 
ness of his substance, Ὑπόστασις αὐτοῦ, his substance, I regard as equiva- 
lent to him, himself as he really is ; for this would seem to be the meaning 
of substance in the case before us, and not the designation of the physical 
or metaphysical nature of the divine substance, which neither Christ nor 
any of the sacred writers have represented to us, and of which the Logos 
is not an image, since he is ONE with the Father. 

Others understand ἀπαύγασμα in the sense of image, exact resemblance, 
and δόξα as meaning, divine majesty ; thus making ἀπαύγασμα δόξης and 
χαρακτὴρ τῆς Ἐπ πε κε: αὐτοῦ synonymous. “They appeal by way of 
supporting this to an expression in Philo, who calls the sanctuary of the 
temple οἵον ἀπαύγασμα τῶν ἁγίων καὶ μίμημα τοῦ ἀρχετύπου, an image (as 
they translate it) of the [heavenly] sanctuary, and a resemblance of the arche- 
type. But here ἀπαύγασμα may well be rendered radiance, i.e. light 
emanated from the heavenly sanctuary, in reference to the heavenly splen- 
dor which appeared in the most holy place. Philo de Plantat. Noe, L. 
Il. p. 221. edit. Francofurt. The book of Wisdom calls wisdom, ἀπαύ- 
γασμα φωτὸς ἀϊδίου, καὶ εἰκόνα τῆς ἀγαϑότητος αὐτοῦ, the radiance of eler- 
nal light and the image of [God’s] goodness ; which, although cited by 
them, is still less to the purpose of defending their opinion. 

Ancient and modern commentators, who have construed these phrases 
as having respect to the divine nature and condition of the Son, have un- 
derstood them as asserting an exact likeness between the Father and Son, 
first in regard to attributes (δόξα), and then in regard to substance or es- 
sence (ὑπόστασις). I must however regard the phrase in question, as of 
the same nature in respect to meaning with the texts to which it has been 
compared in the commentary; and we may surely find, in the analogy of 
the Scripture and in the nature of the imagery, reason to justify this view 
of the whole. But as the explanation referred to has been so long insist- 
ed on, and so often repeated, it deserves at least some particular attention. 

Theodoret has best exhibited the mode of argument, which is used to 
defend the sentiment in question. “Splendor (axatyacue),” says he, 
“comes from fire. It has fire as its cause, but is inseparable from the 
fire; for fire and splendor proceed from the same source. If now it is 
possible, in respect to objects of sense, that one thing should be derived 
from another, and yet co-exist with that from which it is derived, you 
cannot doubt that God the Logos, the only begotten Son of God, is begot- 
ten as a Son, and yet that he co- Ἀπ with eee who begat him as Logos, 
which [Logos] is ἀπαύγασμα δόξης. For the glory and the splendor have 
one common source. Butthe glory always existed ; consequently the splen- 
dor. Fire and splendor are of the same nature; then the Son is of the 
same nature with the Father. Moreover, since the image of splendor 

71 


558 Excursvs III. ues. 1: 3. 


abundantly shews the co-eternal and co-essential nature [of the Son with 
the Father], it has afforded occasion for the blasphemies of those who la- 
bour under the disease of Sabellius and Photinus. By another image, 
therefore, he [the apostle] refutes this blasphemy, since splendor does not 
exist in and of itself; for he adds, χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὑτοῦ, κ- τ. Ae? 
Theod. Comm. on Heb. 1: 3. 

In a similar manner Chrysostom and Theophylact argue, calling the 
Son φῶς ἐκ φωτός. So the Nicene Fathers say, ‘the Son is φῶς ἐκ φωτὸς, 
χαὶ ϑεὸς ἐκ ϑεοῦ. All these plainly borrow their phraseology from the ex- 
pression, ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ, which is referred by them to the 
divine nature of Christ. 

But how incompetent any material objects are, to afford just analogies 
of the modus evistendi of a divine and uncreated Nature, need not be again 
insisted on in this place. We might well ask, Is not the sun the cause of 
light 9 And does not the cause exist before the effect? Again; Is light 
in all respects homoousian with the source of light, the luminary from 
which it springs? Is the radiance of the sun the same thing as the sun 
itself ? 

Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Gregory Nyssen, moreover assert, that 
the expression χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ, necessarily implies an en- 
tire resemblance in all respects of the Son to the Father, with the exception 
of separate hypostasis ; and this they maintain must be so, because the 
impression made by a stamp or die is exactly like the stamp or die itself. 
But it may be asked, first, Whether the writer himself of our epistle 
makes, as these commentators do, the exception of hypostasis from the 
completeness of the resemblance asserted? Next, whether an impression 
is indeed in all respects like the die which made it? For example; is 
the impression solid, or of the same material with the stamp ; or does it 
possess the same physical attributes; or is it coeval with it? Such asser- 
tions, therefore, though they may be oratorical enough, and please the fancy 
of hearers or readers, vanish away before the tribunal of examination, and 
serve only to show the incompetence of any earthly analogies to give a 
true representation of the modus existendi, or of the physical substance of 
the Godhead. They also shew the imprudence, nay the danger, of em- 
ploying such figures in regard to a subject of so awful a nature. 

There can be no doubt in the mind of any man who carefully examines, 
that the Nicene fathers and the Greek commentators, one and all, held that 
Christ as to his divine nature was derived from the Father. So the Nicene 
creed, ϑεὸς ἐκ ϑεοῦ, φῶς ἐκ φωτός. So Chrysostom, commenting on the 
phrase in Heb. 1: 18, κάϑου ἐκ δεξιῶν μου, affirms that “the apostle says 
this for no other reason, than that you may not suppose the Son to be 
ἄναρχον καὶ ἀναίτιον," i.e. sine principio et sine causd ; most evidently in the 
very spirit of the Nicene creed. Yet we may ask the question, we cannot 
help asking it: Is then the Son, who is God over all and blessed forever—is 
he, in his Divine nature, derived and dependent 5 Has he, as very God, an 
αἰτία and an ἀρχή And is it possible for us to make the idea of true and 
proper divinity harmonize with that of derivation and consequent depend- 
ence? No; itis not. The spiritual views of the nature of God, which 
are now generally entertained by enlightened men, forbid this; in fact, 


Εχουπβυβ IV. nes. 1: 9. 559 
they render it absolutely impossible. But not so in the days of the Nicene 
council and of the Greek commentators. That they believed in the divine 
nature of Christ, I consider as altogether certain ; but that their views of 
what is necessary to constitute a rational and defensible idea of a nature tru- 
ly divine, were correct, is what no one, I think, who has read their writings 
and judged for himself, will now venture to maintain. Their views of the 
divine nature were built on the metaphysical philosophy of their day : 
but we are not bound to admit this philosophy as correct; nor is it indeed 
possible, now, for our minds to admit it. 


EXCURSUS IV. 
Heb. 1:3. “Zxaduoev ἐν δεξιᾷ τῆς μεγαλοσύνης. 


To sit αἱ the right hand of one ona throne, appears to have had two 
meanings, both in profane and sacred usage. 

1. It denotes honour, friendship, peculiar approbation, a reward bestowed 
on any one. Thus Solomon, when on his throne, directed Bathsheba his 
mother to sit at his right hand, 1 Καὶ. 2:19. Thus in Ps. 45: 9, the queen 
is represented as taking her place at the right hand of the king her hus- 
band. The mother of James and John requests of Jesus, that her two 
sons may sit the one on his right hand and the other on his left during his 
reign, ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ σου (Matt. 20: 20—23, comp. Mark 10: 35—40), i. e. 
that they may occupy the highest places of honour under him as king. 
In other passages, Christ promises his disciples that they shall have 
thrones in the world of glory, Matt. 19: 28; nay, that they shall sit down 
with him on his throne, even as he sits down with his Father on his 
throne, Rey. 3:21. So Christians are said to have a kingdom given to 
them, Rev. 1: 6; they are a kingly priesthood, 1 Pet. 2:93; they reign with 
Christ, or in life, 2 Tim. 2: 12. Rom. 5:17. James 2: 5. Matt. 25: 34. 
Rev. 5:10. In all these and the like cases, honour, reward, an exalted 
state of happiness or glory, is represented by such expressions ; but not 
actual participation in the supreme government of the universe. 

2. To sit at the right hand of one enthroned, or to sit on a throne with 
one, also denotes participation of command, authority, or dignity. So the 
heathen often employed the phrase ; 6. g. Pindar represents Minerva as 
δεξιὰν χατὰ χεῖρα tov πατρὸς καϑεζομένην, sitting at the right hand of her 
father [Jove]; which Horace explains by her occupying proximos Jovi ho- 
nores. Pind. Fragm. p. 55. ed. Schneider. Hor. Od. I. 12,19. So Callima- 
chus says of Apollo, that “he will honour the choir who shall sing what 
is pleasant to him; since he is able to do this, ἐπεὶ Aci’ δεξιὸς ἥσται, because 
he sits at the right hand of Jove, Hymn. in Apoll. v. 28. 29.” The Greeks 
ealled him who participated with another in the kingly authority, σύνεδρος, 
πάρεδρος, σύνϑρονος ; although they also applied these terms to any mem- 


560 Excursus V. HEs. 1: 5. 


ber of a council, or of a deliberative judicial assembly. In the New Tes- 
tament, when Christ is represented as sitting at the right hand of divine 
majesty, Heb. 1:3; or at the right hand of God, Heb. 10: 12; or at 
the right of the throne of God, Heb. 12:2; participation in supreme 
dominion is most clearly meant. Compare Acts 2: 32—36. 1 Pet. 3: 
22. Rom. 8:34. Mark 16:19. Phil. 2:6—11. Eph. 1: 20—23. At 
the same time, the comparison of these passages will shew most clearly, 
that Christ’s exaltation to the right hand of God means, his being seated 
on the mediuatorial throne as the result and reward of his sufferings, (see 
particularly Phil. 2:6—I¥, and comp. Heb, 12: 2); and that the phrase in 
question never means, the original dominion which Christ as Logos or God 
possesses. The sacred writers never speak respecting the Logos, consid- 
ered simply in his divine nature, as being seated at the right hand of God ; 
but only of the Logos incarnate or the Mediator, as being seated there. So 
in our text, it is after the expiation made by the Son of God, that he is 
represented as seating himself at the right hand of the divine majesty. 
And that this mediatorial dominion is not to be considered simply as the 
dominion of the divine nature of Christ as such, is plain from the fact that 
when the mediatorial office is fulfilled, the kingdom of the Mediator as 
such is to cease, 1 Cor. 15: 23—28. Moreover, that the phrase, to sit at 
the right hand of God or of the throne of God, does not of itself mean origt- 
nal divine dominion, is clear from the fact that Christ assures his faithful 
disciples they shall sit down with him on his throne, even as he sat down 
with the Father on his throne, Rev. 3: 91. It is exaltation, then, in con- 
sequence of obedience and sufferings, which is designated by the phrase in 
question. See an excellent dissertation De Jesu Christi ad dextram Det 
sedente, by the venerable Dr. Knapp of Halle (νῦν ἐν ἁγίοις), in Knappii 
Scripta varii Argumenti. Hal. 1824. 


EXCURSUS V. 


> Ἄν, ὃν > ~~ » , x » 
Heb. 1:5. Eyw éo0uoe αὐτῷ εἰς πατέρα, καὶ αὐτὸς ἔσταν μοι εἰς 
Ou 
υἷον. 


A difficulty still remains, in regard to the application of 2 Sam. 7: 14 to 
Christ. In the very same verse which contains the quotation made by the 
apostle, is contained the following expression: “If he commit iniquity, I 
will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children 
of men ;” i. e. I will inflict such punishment as men receive on account of 
transgression. Can it well be said respecting the Son of God, “ If he com- 
mit iniquity, ete. ?” Where can any analogy in Scripture be found of such 
language as applied to hin? The answer must be: No where. But by 
a nearer inspection of the whole prophecy, and by comparing it with other 
predictions of a similar nature, perhaps the difficulty presented may be di- 


Excursus V. nes. 1: 5. 561 


minished, if not removed. What hinders that God should promise both 
temporal and spiritual blessings to David, in consideration of his piety ἢ 
See 2 Sam. 7: 1—13. Why could he not promise him that he should 
have successors on his throne, who should, like other men, fall into sin 
and be chastened for it? And yet, that among those kings who should 
descend from him, there should be one who was the Son of God in a pe- 
culiar sense, who was destined to a dignity—to a throne—of a most exalted 
nature. Such at least seems to be the exposition by the author of the 
eighty-ninth Psalm, vs. 29—37. 

Compare this now with the promises made to Abraham, Gen. 12: 1—3. 
15: 1—6. 17: 1—8. These passages certainly contaim assurances, that 
Abraham should have a literal numerous offspring, and that they should 
inherit the land of Canaan ; see Gen. 15: 7—18. Yet they also contain 
assurances of a seed in whom all nations should be blessed, Gal. 3: 14— 
17; and of a seed who should be the heirs of Abraham’s faith, i. 6. re- 
semble him in regard to faith or belief, Gal. 3: 6—8. It may be difficult 
for us to ascertain, im some cases, where the temporal promise ends and the 
spiritual one begins, and so vice versd ; because both are couched, as usual, 
in similar language. But this does not shew that there is any absurdity, 
or any improbability, in the supposition that God may have promised, and 
that he has promised, blessings both spiritual and temporal at the same 
time. Did he not engage that David should have successors on his earthly 
throne ; and also that he should have a Son who would sit on ἃ spiritual 
throne, and have a kingdom of which David’s own was but a mere type ? 
Luke 1: 32,33. Rom. 1 : 9,4, Admitting this, our difficulty is diminished 
if not removed. The “ iniquity committed” is predicated of that part of 
David’s seed who might commit it, i.e. his successors on the national 
throne ; while the more exalted condition, predicated of his successor, be- 
longs to him to whom was given a kingdom over all. 

If you say: ‘Thus interpreted, the prophecy seems to be in a great 
measure general, and difficult to be definitely interpreted ; the answer is: 
So it was designed to be. The general idea only was intended to be com- 
municated of some future most distinguished progeny of David. Very 
much of our difficulty in interpreting most of the prophecies of the Old 
Testament, arises from aiming to make them more specific and definite 
than they were originally intended to be. When we shall have thorough- 
ly learned, that “the Law made nothing perfect,” we shall find less diffi- 
culty in the interpretation both of the Old and New Testament. 


562 Excursus VI. nes. 1: 6. 


EXCURSUS VI. 
Heb. 1:6. Kai προσκυνησάτωσαν αὐτῷ πάντες ἄγγελοι ϑεοῦ. 


Although nearly all the commentators on our epistle admit that the pas- 
sage is actually quoted by the apostle, yet the difficulties to which this 
opinion is exposed, should not be passed over in silence. 

In Deut. 32: 43 [Sept.] the very words are found which appear in our 
text. But, (1) They are found only in the Septuagint version; the He- 
brew and all the ancient versions omitting them. (2) The copies of the 
Septuagint itself are not agreed respecting them. The Codex Alex. reads 
viol ϑεοῦ instead of ἄγγελοι ϑεοῦ; and one Codex at Oxford omits the 
whole clause. (9) The subject connected with this command to the an- 
gels, (if we admit the clause in the Septuagint to be a part of the sacred 
text), has no relation to the Messiah. The context celebrates the victory 
over the enemies of Israel, which God will achieve. After saying, that 
“his arrows should be drunk with blood, and that his sword should devour 
flesh with the blood of the slain and of captives, from the time when he 
begins to take vengeance on the enemy ;” the Septuagint (not the Hebrew) 
immediately inserts, εὐφράνϑητε οὐρανοὶ ἅμα αὐτῷ, καὶ προσκυνησάτωσαν 
αὐτῷ πάντες ἄγγελοι ϑεοῦ. This, in the place where it stands, must needs 
mean: ‘ Let the inhabitants of the heavenly world rejoice in the victory of 
God over the enemies of his people, and let them pay their adoration to 
him.’ But the Messiah does not seem to be at all alluded to, any where 
in the context; much less described as being introduced into the world. 1 
should therefore think it very improbable, if the apostle meant to quote 
Scripture, that he meant to quote this Scripture, on the present occasion ; 
for we have no knowledge, (unless it be so applied in our text), that the 
Jews of his time were wont to apply this passage to the Messiah. Still, 
it is a possible case, (I cannot say probable), that he quoted the words of 
Deut. 32: 43, merely as fitted to express the idea which he intended to 
convey ; just as we now borrow Scripture language, every day, to convey 
our own ideas, without feeling it to be at all necessary to prove, in every 
case, that the same meaning was originally conveyed by the words which 
we employ as we attach to them in our discourse. Such a use, it is well 
known, is not unfrequently made of passages from the Old Testament by 
the writers of the New; and such an one, Storr maintains, is here made 
by the apostle of the words of the Septuagint in Deut. 32: 43. 

The probability, all things considered, seems plainly to be in favour of 
a quotation from Ps. OTe (Sept. 96:7); where the Sept. has, προσκυνή- 
TUTE αὐτῷ πάντες ἄγγελοι αὐτοῦ, as ἃ translation of the Heb. ernie wre, 
pba-bo, worship him all ye Elohim. Were αἰτοῦ in the Septuag zint, 
stands after ἄγγελοι, but in Heb. 1: 6 it is Θεοῦ, and καί in our quotation is 
wanting in the Sept. Still, any one who has compared the quotations of 
the N. Test. from the Old, either with the Hebrew or Septuagint, must 
have seen that very few of them are verbatim. The variation here of the 


Excursvus VI. nes. 1: 6. 563 


quotation from the original, is so small, and so entirely unconcerned with 
the sense of the passage, that the discrepancy will not be any hindrance 
at all to the supposition that Ps. 97: 7 may have been quoted. 

It is certainly a possible case, that this Psalm celebrates the introduc- 
tion of the Messiah to his mediatorial throne. His empire was to destroy 
idolatry, and fill the hearts of the righteous with gladness, Ps. 97 : 11, 12. 
The Jews, as Kimchi asserts, were wont to apply all the Psalms, from Ps. 
xc. to Ps. ΟἿ.) to the Messiah. If such an explanation was current in 
the time of Paul, as seems probable, it would give additional force to the 
appeal here made. And even if Paul himself did not regard Ps. xcvit. as 
originally designed to be applied to the Messiah, he might still use the 
words of it as descriptive of facts which took place at the time of the 
Saviour’s exaltation. ‘There is nothing, however, in the 97th Psalm which 
forbids our referring it to the regal inauguration of the Messiah; and so 
long as we know that the Jews did refer it to him, and that the apostle 
has here referred it to his introduction into the οἰκουμένην, this is sufficient 
to satisfy us that it should be so construed. 

One question, however, still remains. How could the Seventy, and 
Paul after them, translate D758 as meaning angels 2? It is admitted, that the 
great body of lexicogr aphers aud critics, in recent times, have rejected the 
sense of the word here given. But usage, after all, pleads in favour of 
it. The Septuagint render 58 (God) by ἄγγελος, in Job 20:15; and 
Dade by ἄγγελοι, in Ps. 8: 6 (and so the Chaldee Targum here) ; 97: 
7 (96 7). 137:1(188:1). Paul follows them, by quoting Ps. 8: 6 in Heb. 
2:7; and also by quoting Ps. 97: 7, in the verse before us, i. 6. if we 
concede that he does actually quote it. Is not this sufficient evidence 
that there was a usus loquendi among the Jews, which applied the word 
D>N occasionally to designate angels Ὁ It is adinitiod that kings and 
magistrates are called Blahin, because of their rank or dignity. Is there 
any thing improbable in the supposition, that angels may be also called 
D>, who at present are elevated above men, Heb.2:7? Facts, and 
not suppositions, are evidences of the usus loquendi of the Jewish writers. 
Accordingly our most recent and distinguished lexicons acknowledge the 
sense of D°>N here advocated ; see Gesenii Thesaurus on 73558 , who, 
though himself inclined to doubt or reject this sense of the word, still 
proffers satisfactory evidence that no violence is done to the laws of inter- 
pretation, when such a rendering is given. 


δ04 Excursvs VII. nes. 1: 11, 12. 


EXCURSUS VII. 


Heb. 1:11, 12. 30 κατ᾽ ἀρχὰς, κύριε, τὴν γὴν ἐθεμελίωσας, καὶ 
ἔργα τῶν χειρῶν σου εἰσὶν οἱ οὐρανοί. «Ἵὐτοὶ ἀπολοῦνται, σὺ δὲ 
διαμενεῖς" καὶ πάντες ὡς ἱμάτιον παλαιωϑήσονται, καὶ εἷσεὶ περιβό- 
λαιον ἑλίξεις αὐτοὺς, καὶ ἀλλαγήσονται" σὺ δὲ ὁ αὐτὸς εἴ, καὶ τὰ ἔτη 
σου οὐκ ἐχλείψουσι. 


In regard to the body of the Psalm (Ps. em.) from which this whole 
quotation is taken, the majority of the late critics agree in the opinion, 
that it does not primarily relate to the Messiah, but to Jehovah absolutely 
considered. It is, no doubt, one of those Psalms, the internal evidence of 
which does not so clearly and definitely determine the application of the 
whole composition, as does that of many others. ‘Thus much also seems 
to be clear, viz. that there is nothing in the Psalm which forbids the ap- 
plication of it to the Messiah. Nay, there are several passages in it, which 
apply to him in a more apposite way than to any other personage. If we 
suppose the complaint (vs. 1—11) to be that of the church previously to 
the appearance of its Redeemer, then does the sequel well agree with the 
promised redemption. In particular, verses 15, 18, 20, 22, describe the 
propagation and prosperity of true religion among the heathen. But 
when was such a diffusion of the true knowledge and worship of God to 
take place? Under the Jewish dispensation, or under the Christian ? 
Surely under the latter only. Compare too y. 20 with Isaiah 61: 1, which 
the Saviour applies to himself, Luke 4: 17—21. Verses 23, 24 of Ps. cir, 
renew the complaint of the church ; and vs. 25—28 contain the answer, 
viz. that the Redeemer is the Creator and immutable, and that the church 
shall be continued, and a godly seed be permanent. So I am inclined to 
explain the whole Psalm; and so, at any rate, the writer of our epistle 
seems to have understood it. Certainly there is nothing that forbids 
such an explanation, when it is once admitted that the Messiah was at all 
the subject of prediction in ancient times, and that some of the Psalms do 
actually contain such predictions. 

But if any one prefers construing Psalm ci. as applicable merely to 
Jehovah, absolutely considered, then there is no serious difficulty with 
respect to our quotation. The application of the same words to the Son 
of God, which were originally spoken respecting Jehovah, is equivalent to 
saying : ‘ What was affirmed by the Psalmist of Jehovah, may be as truly 
affirmed of the Son.’ As the writer applies the words in this manner, it 
shews that he considered those whom he addressed as being accustomed 
to make such an application of them, and that they were willing to admit 
it; otherwise he could not have expected the argument to be acknowl- 
edged by them as a forcible one. 

Admitting now that the apostle has correctly applied this passage to the 


Excursus VIII. nes. 2: 2. 565 


Son, either in the former or the latter method, (and one of these must 
surely be admitted), then it follows that the Son possesses a nature truly 
divine. The act of creation is the highest evidence of such a nature, that 
is offered or can be offered to our minds; and the sacred writers appeal 
to it as such; see Rom. 1: 20. Ps. ae 1. Acts 14:15. Is. 40: 25, 26. 
42: 5—8. 43: 15. 44: 24. 45:18. 46: 9. 48: 12,13. It is plain thatthe 
force of the proof in question is not ately whether you suppose the 
102d Psalm originally to relate to the Messiah or not. If it originally re- 
lated to him, then the application is clear and unembarrassed. If it ori- 
ginally related to Jehovah simply considerd, then the apostle asserts here, 
that what was said of Jehovah may also be applied in the same manner 
to the Son. Consequently, the weight of the argument is the same in 
either case, as it respects the divine nature of Christ. Hither would shew 
the opinion of the writer to be, that the Son is eternal and also the Crea- 
tor of the universe; of course, that he is exalted beyond all measure above 
the angels and is truly divine. For as the same writer says: He who 
made all things, is God, Heb. 3:4. 

We may observe, too, that this last argument is the climax of the whole, 
and completes the proof which the apostle adduces to shew the exalted 
dignity of the Son. He had intimated the same sentiment at the com- 
mencement of his epistle, ν. 2; but here he brings out into full light, the 
nature of his views respecting this subject. Whatever then may be the 
economy according to which God made all things by his Son, it is not of 
such a nature as to exclude supreme creatorship and eternal existence as 
belonging to the Son; both of which are asserted to belong to him by 
the passage now before us. 


EXCURSUS VIII. 
Heb. 2:2. Zi yao ὁ Ov ἀγγέλων λαληϑεὶς λόγος. 


There are two methods of explaining this. (1) The apostle here speaks 
merely in the way of accommodation to the Jewish mode of representing 
this subject. The Jews attributed the giving of the law to angels, as me- 
diators or internuncit between Jehovah and them; and they were accus- 
tomed to make high claims on this account, with respect to the dignity and 
superior excellency of their law. 'The apostle here adverts to their views of 
this subject ; and what he says amounts to this: ‘If every transgr ession of 
the law which you regard as given by the mediation of angels, was pun- 
ished ete.” In like manner the same apostle says to the Galatians : “ Who 
hath bewitched you ?” without intending to teach us that he believed in the 
power of w iteheraft. And so our Saviour may have spoken to the Jews, 
of the unclean spirit that goes out of a man and walks through dry [desert] 


72 


r 


566 Excursus VIII. ues. 2: 2. 


places seeking rest and finding none, but afterwards it returns with seven 
other spirits and repossesses the same man (Matt. 12: 43), without intend- 
ing to teach us, that impure spirits actually wander about in deserts ; (al- 
though [ doubt this exegesis). We are not, then, absolutely obliged to 
understand the apostle as meaning any thing more by the expression in 
question, than a reference to the Jewish mode of speaking and thinking 
relative to the subject of angels, But, 

(2) Another mode of explanation is, that the phrase contains a conces- 
sion on the part of the writer, of what was viewed by him to be matter of 
fact. This view I feel constrained to adopt, by a comparison of similar 
passages. In Acts 7: 53, Stephen says to the Jews: “Ye have received 
the law εἰς διαταγὰς ἀγγέλων, by the disposition (order, arrangement] of 
angels ;” and Paul, speaking of the law, in Gal. 3: 19, says that it was 
διαταχεὶς δι΄ ἀγγέλων, arranged, (disposed, proposed] by angels. 

But here a difficulty is urged. God himself proclaimed the law to the 
Israelites, Ex. 20: 1, 19, 22. Deut. 5:4. How then can the law be said 
to be λαληϑεὶς δι΄ ἀγγέλων 2 Different ways of avoiding and answering 
this difficulty, have been adopted. Some have denied that 0 λόγος here 
means the law ; and they interpret it as referrmg to the different messages, 
which in the Old Testament are said to have been delivered by angels. 
Others have made a distinction between what was said directly to Moses 
by God himself, and what was promulgated [διαταγείς, sig διαταγ ἄς], as 
they say, to the people at large by angels. That the law of Moses however 
is meant, is plain from a comparison of Heb. 10: 28, 29 and 12: 25; as 
well as from the nature of the comparison here proposed between the old 
dispensation and the new one. And that the tenuous distinction made in 
the second case, is unnecessary, every one who reflects well on the usus 
loquendi of Scripture will concede. God is very often said to do that, 
which instruments under his direction or under the general arrangements 
of his providence accomplish. This idiom proceeds so far, that even evil 
is ascribed to him in this way by one phrase, which another passage shews 
to have been perpetrated by an inferior agent. Εἰ. g. in 2 Sam. 24: 7 it is 
said of Jehovah, O21 he moved [or excited| David to go and number Is- 

rael; which crime was followed by tremendous punishment. Wet. am 
Chron. 21: 1 it is said of Satan, mO21 he moved David to go and number 
Israel. So it is repeatedly said of Phar aoh, that he hardened his own heart, 
and that the Lord hardened his heart, in Ex. 1v—x. So, according to the 
prophet, Jehovah smites the confederate Syrians and Israelites, Is. vir—rx ; 
so in other passages, Jehovah is represented as smiting the nations of Ju- 
dah, of Assyria, of Babylonia, of Egypt, of Tyre, of Moab, etc. Yet in all 
these cases, instruments were employed. Solomon built the temple ; but 
he did not hew and lay the stones with his own hands, nor carve the 
goodly architecture. Nothing can be more erroneous then in most cases, 
than to draw the conclusion, that } because the Scripture asserts some par- 
ticular thing to have been done by God, therefore he did it immediately, 
i.e. So that no instruments were employed by him. How much difficulty 
and contradiction, as well in theology as in interpretation, has such a mode 
of reasoning produced! In interpreting the principles of human laws, we 
say: Qui facit per alium, facit per se. Does not common sense approve of 


Excorsus VIII. uep. 2: 2. 567 


this, as applied to the language of the Scriptures ? Nothing can be more 
evident, than that the sacred writers have expressed themselves in a man- 
ner which recognizes this principle. 

If then we are pressed with the literal explanation of 6 δι᾽ ἀγγέλων λό- 
γος, and any one insists that this can mean no less than that angels uttered 
audible sounds when the law was given; all this may be conceded, and 
still no contradiction be found in the representations of Scripture when its 
usus loquendi is well understood. God did that, which the angels performed 
by his direction. 

Yet such a Literal interpretation of this passage is hardly to be insisted 
on. Stephen in Acts 7: 53, and Paul in Gal. 3: 19, assert only that the 
law was διαταγεὶς Ov’ ἀγγέλων ; which well conveys the general meaning to 
be attached to an expression of this nature, viz. ‘the angels were minister- 
ing spirits, or assisted at the giving of the law.’ Such was the Jewish 
tradition in the apostolic age. Josephus says: “Our best maxims and most 
excellent laws we have learned of God, du’ ἀγγέλων," Archaeol. XV. 5. 3. 
Philo (Lib. de Decalogo) states, that “ there were present at the giving of 
the law, voices visible, animated, and splendid, flames of fire, πνεύματα, 
trumpets, and divine men running hither and thither to publish the law.” 
Yet in another place he states, that “God only spake the law to Moses ;” 
which however, as we have seen above, is not at al! inconsistent with the 
former representation. 

In addition to all this, there is a passage in Deut. 33: 2, respecting the 
legislation at Sinai, which seems to refer to the fact designed to be stated 
in our text. “The Lord came from Sinai, and rose up from Seir unto 
them [the children of Israel]; he shined from mount Paran, and he came 
with holy myriads, (UP n5227972).” By the holy myriads here mentioned, 
what can be meant Except the angels? Moreover in Ps. 68: 18 it is said: 
“'The chariots of God are myriads, thousands repeated ; the Lord is in the 
midst of them, as on Sinai, as in his sanctuary.” Does not this evidently 
recognize the fact, that when God made his appearance on Sinai, at the 
giving of the law, he was surrounded by a multitude of angels? So then, 
the Old and New Testaments agree, in representing the angels as present 
when the law was given and as being ministering spirits on that occasion. 

That the Jews, and a multitude of Christians after them, have carried 
speculation to a repulsive length on the ‘subject of angelic ministration at 
the giving of the law, does not disprove the fact itself; much less are their 
extravagances to be imputed to the writer of our epistle. While some 
have maintained that the angels made circuits round the camp of the He- 
brews ; others, that they excited the thunders, and lightnings, and tempest ; 
some that they blew the trumpets; others that they caused the quaking of 
the earth ; some that they delivered the tables of the law to Moses ; others 
that they uttered audibly the words of the law; and others still that they 
were mere spectators of the awful scene ; we may stand aloof from being 
thus wise above what is written, and content ourselves simply with what 
our author teaches us, and what the Scriptures confirm, viz. that angels 
did assist at the giving of the law, or were in some way employed as min- 
istering spirits by Jehovah on the occasion of its being promulgated. This 
is all that the text can well be interpreted as meaning, and all that is requi- 
site for the argument of the apostle. 


568 Excursus ΙΧ. nes. 2: 6—8. 


EXCURSUS IX. 


° 


Heb. 2:6—8. Aveucorvgato δέ που τὶς, λέγων, Ti ἐστιν ἀνϑρωπος, 
ὅτι μιμνήσχῃ αὐτόν; ᾿,λάττωσας αὐτὸν βραχύ te παρ᾽ ἀγγέλους" 
δόξῃ χαὶ τιμὴ ἐστεφάνωσας αὐτὸν, [καὶ κατέστησας αὐτὸν ἐπὶ τὰ 
ἔργα τῶν χειρῶν σου] πάντα ὑπέταξας ὑποκάτω τῶν ποδῶν 
αὐτοῦ. 


Thus far the quotation from Ps. virr. But how, it is asked, can this 
apply to Christ in particular, when the author of this Psalm evidently 
speaks of human nature or man in general? Many of the later commen- 
tators reply to this question, by conceding that the apostle uses the words 
of the Psalm only in an accommodated sense, in order to express his own 
views of the superiority of Christ’s human nature. But this answer does 
not meet all the demands of the case. It is evident that the writer appeals 
to Scripture authority here, in support of the proposition which he had 
advanced, viz. that the human nature of Christ is superior to that of the 
angels. If now the passage contains nothing more than an assertion of 
that dignity which is common to all men, how would this tend to convince 
those to whom he wrote, that the human nature of Christ is superior to 
that of the angels ? 

It is difficult then to avoid the supposition, that the 8th Psalm was re- 
ferred to the Messiah by those whom the apostle addressed. Was it rightly 
referred to him as being prophetic of him, or not? Many commentators 
answer in the negative. But is there not some reason to adhere to the 
more ancient method of interpretation ? Let the reader now peruse 2 Sam. 
vu. through, and then direct his attention to vs. 17—29, in particular to vs. 
18, 19, 26, 29, compared with the prophetic declarations of Nathan in ys. 
12—16. Does not the frame of mind in which David appears to have 
been on this occasion, correspond well with that described in Ps. 8: 5? 
Suppose now that David, in surveying the works of creation, is in the first 
place deeply impressed with his own insignificance in a comparative 
point of view; and then, in the next place, revolves in his mind the 
promises made to him as recorded in 2 Sam. viz. His mind is naturally 
led to dwell on the distinguished goodness of God, in exalting a creature 
so insignificant as himself to honour so great as the prophet had promised 
him. Among his posterity was to be one who should be the Son of God, 
and on whom universal empire should be conferred, 2 Sam. 7: 12—16, 
compared with vs.8:11. In view of such honours, how natural would be 
the expressions of Ps.8: G6—10! In the person of this illustrious descend- 
ant whom Nathan had promised to him, he could see, with a prophetic 
eye, that the human nature would be exalted to universal dominion. No 
created thing was to be excepted from this dominion. As to the particu- 
lars enumerated in Ps. 8: 8, 9, they are plainly borrowed from Gen. 1: 
26 seq. and indicate nothing more than the universality of dominion. They 


Excursus ΙΧ. nen. 9: 6---ὃ, 569 


ation around him, and abridged by his fall, is to be actually conferred on 
human nature ; and this too in a still higher sense, inasmuch as all things 
are to be subjected to the Messiah.’ In other words, not only is man to 
have such dominion as by his original creation he was designed to have, 
viz. over beasts and fowls and fishes, but nothing in this case is to be ex- 
cepted. With such views as these might not the royal Psalmist well add, 
“How excellent is thy name in all the earth !” 

Who now that admits the spirit of prophecy to have at all existed, can 
deny that David might have such a view of his future Son? Nay, consid- 
ering the use which the apostle has made of the passage in question, is 
not this explanation of the Psalm a probable one ? 

Iam disposed then to believe that the course of thought, in David’s 
mind, was something like the following: ‘ Lord, how insignificant am I, 
compared with the glorious works which the heavens display! Yet thou 
hast magnified thy goodness toward me in a wonderful manner. Thou 
hast not only formed me in thine image, and bestowed many blessings 
upon me, but promised me a Son, on whom distinguished glory and unt- 
versal empire shall be conferred. Can it be that human nature will be 
thus exalted? Adored be thy name through all the earth "ἢ 

What is there now in all this, which is any more improbable than any 
other prophetic declaration respecting a future Saviour and Lord of the 
world ? 

But if any one refuses to admit these views, there is still a sense in 
which all the saints are, through Christ, to be exalted above angels, and 
to have a participation in the dominion of the world. They are, as being 
united with the Messiah and as being his brethren (Heb. 2: 11), to judge 
i.e. rule [5 ὦ xoivey] the world, 1 Cor.6:2; to rule over the angels, 
1 Cor. 6: 3; to have power over the nations and rule them, Rev. 2: 26, 
27; to sit with the Redeemer on his throne, Rev. 3: 21; they are made 
kings and priests unto God, and reign over the earth, Rev. 5:10. All 
this, however, is plainly spoken in a qualified sense; and such privileges 
are bestowed upon them only by virtue of their union with Christ, to 
whom supreme dominion belongs. In like manner we say: ‘'The Romans 
held the empire of the world; attributing to the nation what properly be- 
longed to their prince. 

Human nature then in the persons of the saints, in a special manner of 
course in the person of their head or leader, is exalted to a state of pre- 
cedence above the angels, to a state of universal dominion. Consequent- 
ly, that Christ possessed a nature which was human, did not make him 
inferior to the angels, but (since this nature was to be thus exalted) supe- 
rior to them. And thus the Psalmist declared it should be. 

If the whole passage be understood as limited principally to Christ, or 
as extending to the saints also, the point which the apostle aims to prove 
is established. But it is only by understanding the passage according to 
the first method of interpreting it, that we can well apply, in its full force, 
the sequel of the apostle’s remarks. Indeed, what can be more evident, 
than that since the fall of our first parents, universal dominion even over 
all the animal creation, has never been actually possessed by man? Christ 


570 Eixcursus X. HEB. 2: 138. 


only has it in its full sense ; and in him only have the words of Ps. vin. 
had a πλήρωσις in all the extent of their meaning. When we once admit 
that prophetic anticipations of Christ were not only possible but matters 
of fact, is there any thing which creates a serious difficulty in supposing 
them to have been actually entertained by David in respect to Christ, and 
to have been uttered in the Psalm just mentioned ? 


EXCURSUS X. 


- Γ΄ Γ , Ἄν 9. ἈΝ Ύ 3 ~ 
Heb. 2:13. Kai πάλιν, Fyw ἔσομαι πεποιϑὼς ex αὐτῷ" καὶ πάλιν, 
Per ee Lae | ny \ \ ΤῊ cr » ς ͵ 
“δοὺ ἔγω, καὶ τὰ παιδία ἃ wot ἔδωκεν ὁ ϑέεος. 


But how does the passage quoted relate to the Messiah? In 15. ὃ: 17, 
18, the subject spoken of is the prophet himself, who declares that he will 
keep himself in the attitude of constant waiting, i.e. in expectation that 
the prophecies which he had just been uttering would be fulfilled ; and 
he appeals to the children, to which had been given symbolical names, and 
which God had given to him as pledges that these prophecies would be 
fulfilled. It would seem then at first view, that our author had accommo- 
dated this passage, merely for the purpose of expressing his views of the 
subject before him. There can be but little doubt, however, that when 
our epistle was written, the Jews in general construed a part of the chap- 
ter of Isaiah in question as having respect to the Messiah. Thus Paul, in 
Rom. 9 : 82, 33, seems plainly to refer to Is. 8: 14, as the source of a part 
of his quotation ; and this passage he treats as applicable to Christ. Ina 
similar way, also, the passage under consideration with the clause that 
follows, appears to be treated. Indeed, unless the persons to whom Paul 
wrote would readily refer the passage quoted to the Messiah, it is difficult 
to perceive how the quotation, in the shape with which it is here intro- 
duced, would present any argument to them in favour of the position that 
men are the brethren of the Messiah. But still, the mode of reasoning, it 
inust be owned, seems to be argumentum ad hominem, or argumentum ex 
concessis, rather than from the real nature of things, considered indepen- 
dently of the opinions of those to whom our author wrote. Critics, in 
modern times, have felt a difficulty in considering this species of argu- 
ment as admissible by a sacred writer. The Christian fathers, however, 
had no difficulties of this sort ; most of them freely admitted it. 

The majority of Protestant critics have considered the passage of Isaiah 
now in question, as actually spoken in the person of the Messiah. This 
they have done, in order to avoid the necessity of admitting an argumen- 
ium ex concessis ; which has been regared by them as incongruous with 
the character of an inspired writer. But in avoiding one difficulty, they 
have fallen upon another equally great ; for all the laws of exegesis, which 


Excursus X. nes. 2: 18. we 


bid us to connect text with context, and to interpret a writer so as to 
make him speak connectedly and (eae to his purpose, are put at defi- 
ance, When we interpret the words of Is. 8: 17, 18, as originally having 
been spoken with direct and primary reference to the Messiah, or in his 
person. ‘To admit such a violation, would be a more serious evil than to 
concede, with nearly all antiquity, that the apostles did sometimes employ 
the argumentum ex concessis, as in the case above stated. 

One may liken this to that of a missionary in Hindoostan, who, design- 
ing to shew the possibility and probability that God might manifest him- 
self in the flesh, should appeal in the course of his argument, for the sake 
of silencing objectors, to the Shasters, which inculcate the doctrine that 
Vishnu became incarnate. Would such an appeal be morally wrong 2 
And if not, then it may be asked: Might not the writer of the espistle to 
the Hebrews make use of the views of those whom he addressed, respect- 
ing a particular passage of Scripture, (although those views might not 
have been exegetically well grounded), in order to confirm them in the 
belief of a truth that was well-grounded, and which he knew to be certain 
by revelation, or by other Scriptures which had a direct bearing upon it ? 
However one might decide this case by reasoning ἃ priort, most men 
practically admit such methods of persuasion, and in other things are very 
ready to justify them. Whether we are willing, however, or unwilling to 
admit the fact presented before us, can surely never alter the fact itself. 
Thus much we may truly say, viz. that those modes of explanation, 
which, in order to get rid of difficulty, set afloat all the fixed prin- 
ciples and fundamental laws of interpretation, cannot be admitted without 
the greatest possible danger to the Scriptures ; yet, without the admission 
of such principles, the words of the passage in question do not appear 
susceptible of being construed as originally and primarily having had a 
direct reference to the Messiah. 

After all, however, this view of the subject applies merely to the simple 
interpretation of the original words of Is. vii1., but not to the typical de- 
sign which may have been attached to the things or facts there related. 
We know that in the preceding chapter, the birth of a child to be called 
Emmanuel, who was to spring from a virgin, is predicted, (7: 14) ; which 
birth was to be a proof to Ahaz, that within some three years (comp. vs. 
14 with 15, 16), the land of Judah should be delivered from the confed- 
erated kings of Israel and Syria who had invaded it. Originally and Lit- 
erally this seems applicable only to the birth of a child within that period 
of 3 years; for how could the birth of Jesus, which happened 742 years 
afterwards, be a sign (m3) to Ahaz, that within three years his kingdom 
was to be freed from his enemies? Such a child, it would seem, was 
born at that period ; for in chapter 8: 8, 10, he is twice referred to as if 
then present, or at least then living. In v. 10, our English version has 
translated the proper name 5872 7ay , and thus ΠῚ the form of the 
original Hebrew. Yet in Matt. 1: 3, the passage in Is. 7: 14 appears to 
be ‘cited, as containing a prophecy relative to the Saviour’s being con- 
ceived in the womb of the virgin Mary. In what way then must we ex- 
plain this? How was it a πλήρωσις of Is.7: 142 To these questions 
two answers may be given. (1) It may have been a πλήρωσις, in the 


‘ 


572 Excursus X. Hes. 2: 13. 


same sense as Christ’s being called out of Egypt (Matt. 2:15) was a 
πλήρωσις of Hosea 11:1; i.e. the event, which happened in later times, 
bore a strong resemblance to the one which happened in earlier times ; 
the later event too was of such a nature, that the words of Scripture, ap- 
plied to characterize the early event, might be applied with a πλήρωσις, 
i.e. with more completeness, with more force, more propriety, more energy, 
to the later event than to the earlier one. Just so the application of a 
passage in the Old Testament is made to the slaughter of the infants at 
Bethlehem, in Matt. 2: 17, 18, comp. Jer. 31:15. In the same manner 
many other passages of the New Testament are to be construed, which 
refer in a similar way to the Old Testament. 

But if this answer be unsatisfactory, it may be added, (2) That some of 
the extraordinary events themselves, related in Is. vir. and Ὑ111.») may have 
been designed by God, and probably were designed by him, to be typi- 
cal or symbolical of a future spiritual salvation and Saviour. Why is this 
any more impossible or improbable, than that there were other types and 
symbols, under the ancient dispensation, of things which were to exist 
under the new one? The Immanuel then born in an extraordinary way, 
and then by his birth and name a pledge of temporal deliverance to Judah 
from their enemies, might well be a symbol of him who was to save his 
people from all their spiritual enemies, and to bring in everlasting re- 
demption ; whose name also was truly, in a much higher sense, 59272¥ , 
Gop wirr us. If so, then the prophet with his symbolical children (Is. 
8:18), giving assurance of temporal deliverance, may have acted a part that 
was symbolical of a future prophet who would proclaim spiritual deliver- 
ance. In all this, there certainly is nothing impossible. The laws of ex- 
egesis are not infringed by such a supposition. The words of the prophet 
have but one simple original meaning. They apply directly to the trans- 
actions with Ahaz. But the whole of these transactions may have been, 
(may I not add, seem actually to have been?) designed to prefigure a 
greater prophet and a greater deliverance. Unless we deny the possibility 
of prophetic symbol, we must admit the possibility of this. Its probabili- 
ty is deducible from the use which the New Testament writers make of 
these facts. ‘They seem to consider them as having a relation to Christ. 
T grant the possibility of the exegesis, which explains the whole as argu- 
mentum ad hominem. It might be justified by several appeals to the 
New Testament; and he, who wholly denies this principle, only shews 
that he decides upon the subject by reasoning a priori ; for the examina- 
tion of facts cannot fail to convince any one who will patiently and 
thoroughly make it. But still, it does seem to me more probable, taking 
the appeal in Matt. 1: 23 to Is. 7: 14, and the appeal in our text and 
context to Is. 8: 17, 18, that the prophet and Immanuel here act parts 
which may be regarded ‘as symbolic. The extraordinary birth of the 
child Immanuel, at that time, is the symbol of the future birth of a spirit- 
ual Saviour ; and the prophet with his children announcing deliverance 
from the confederated enemies of Israel, is a symbol of him who was to 
“preach liberty to the captives,” and whose spiritual children were to be 
the pledge that all his promises of good should be fulfilled. Is there any 
thing unnatural or strange in all this ? 


Excursus X. nes. 2: 13, 573 


If now this be admitted, then the words of our text may not unaptly be 
applied to Christ. For as the type put his confidence in God, so did the 
antitype. As the type had children who were pledges for the deliverance 
of Judah, so has the antitype “ many sons and daughters,” the pledges of 
his powerful grace, and sureties that his promises in regard to future 
blessings will be accomplished. As the type confided in God, because he 
possessed a nature that was dependent and human, so the antitype must 
have a like nature in order to use the same language; and as the type 
bore the relation of parent to children that were pledges of future bless- 
ings, and therefore possessed a like nature with them, so the antitype had 
a community of nature with those who were his spiritual children, and 
who were pledges that all his promises should be performed. Comp. 2 
Cor. 1: 22. 5:5. 

Thus understood, the whole quotation may be regarded not only as 
justified, but as apposite. Still, if any refuse to consider it in this light, 
because, as they aver, they are unable to see how the words of Isaiah can 
be considered in the light of prediction ; this reason cannot be regarded 
as in itself sufficiently valid. ‘The words employed in Is. vir. and vu. 
have, in themselves, I freely concede, no direct reference to the Messiah ; 
but te things and events, connected with the affairs of Ahaz and his peo- 
ple. Neither have the words a double sense ; which can never be conced- 
ed without destroying the very basis of all stable interpretation. Yet the 
events themselves, events connected with the temporal deliverance of God’s 
people then, may be symbols of a subsequent and spiritual deliverance and 
deliverer. 

But if any one refuses to admit even thus much, it will be difficult for 
him to shew, that the writer of this epistle might not use argumentum ex 
concessis here, (i.e. appeal to those views of Scripture which they whom 
he addressed entertained), in order to confirm in them a belief of what 
he certainly knew to be true; as well as the Saviour could say to the Jews: 
“Tf LT by Beelzebub cast out demons, by whom do your sons cast them out ὃ 
Luke 11: 19.” The difficulty is in fact no greater with the quotation 
under examination, than with many others in the New Testament. Un- 
derstood in any of the ways that have been proposed, it forms no impor- 
tant objection against the sacred writings or their divine authority ; al- 
though considered in the light of accommodation simply, it would inter- 
fere with some of the modern theories of inspiration. But, as has al- 
ready been stated, the ancient churches, high as their views were on the 
subject of inspiration, had no hesitancy in general to admit the principle, 
that the New Testament writers have not unfrequently applied the Old 
Testament Scriptures merely by way of accommodation. While then for 
myself [ must believe there is something more than accommodation in the 
passage under consideration, yet I should not feel it to be a just cause for 
want of charity towards another, who should adopt a different mode of 
explanation, and regard the passages cited to be merely an argumentum er 
concessts. 

it is a strong ground of confirmation with respect to the symbolical ex- 
egesis which has been above proposed, that the prophecy in Isaiah, (which 

73 


574 Excursus XI. nes. 5: 7. 


begins with the 8th cbapier and ends with chap. 9: 7), contains, at the 
close of it, most indubitable proof that the birth of the Messiah and the 
“coming of his kingdom” were, on this occasion, distinctly before the 
mind of the prophet; see Is. 9: 1—7. The whole together, taken in con- 
nection with what appears evidently to be the views of the New Testa- 
ment writers, seems to leave but little doubt, that such as at all acknowl- 
edge the existence of prophecy and symbol in respect to a Messiah who 
was to come, may recognize them both in the case before us. 


EXCURSUS ΧΙ. 


ee yee > τὸ Εν - 3 ε » ͵ 

Heb. 5:7. Ος ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις τῆς σαρχος αὐτοῦ, δεήσεις τε καὶ 
ε ν \ , > oN ͵ γ: 
ἱκετηρίας πρὸς τὸν δυνάμενον σώζειν αὐτὸν ἐκ ϑανάτου, μετὰ 


-“ ' , > a 
χραυγῆς ἰσχυρὰς καὶ δακρύων προσενέγκας, καὶ εἰσυκουσϑεὶς ἀπὸ 
τῆς εὐλαβείας, 


But what was that which Christ feared? And how can it be said that 
he was delivered from it? Questions which commentators for the most 
part have passed by, without any serious attempt to answer them. 

Tf now we turn to Luke 12: 50, we shall see that a view of the suffer- 
ings then future, produced in the mind of Jesus an oppressive anticipa- 
tion, a sensation of distress and dread. As the scene of crucifixion ap- 
proached nearer, these sensations were evidenily increased, until they be- 
came almost overwhelming ; as we may see by consulting Matt. 26: 36— 
39. Luke 22: 40—44. Mark 14: 3436. What the agonies of the cross 
which Jesus endured actually were, we can never fully know; but we 
may draw the conclusion that they were very dreadful, if we read the ac- 
count of the complaint which they forced from him, as it is recorded in 
Matt. 27: 46. Mark 15: 34. It is indeed unaccountable that a character 
such as that of Jesus, pure, spotless, firm, unmoved by opposition and 
contumely and persecution, and unawed by threatenings and danger, dur- 
ing the whole course of his public ministry, should exhibit such a des- 
pondency, such an oppressive, overwhelming sense of pain and distress ; I 
mean, it cannot be accounted for by any of the ordinary principles that 
apply to virtuous sufferers who possess fortitude of soul. That Jesus 
possessed this quality in a most distinguished manner, we know with cer- 
tainty from the whole tenor of his life as pourtrayed by the evangelists. 
How then could he exhibit such an oppressive and overwhelming sense of 
dread, at the prospect of crucifixion? ‘Thousands of men, nay thousands 
of the more delicate sex, in prospect of like sufferings or apparently great- 
er ones, (such as the rack, the wheel, or flames occasion), have been per- 


Excursus XI. nen. 5: 7. 575 


fectly calm, collected, and even triumphant. The very thieves, on the 
cross at the same time with Jesus, exhibit no such signs of despondency 
and oppression. Thousands and millions of common men, without God and 
without hope in the world, have undergone sufferiugs greater than those 
of simple crucifixion, without even uttering a groan, Yet Jesus was not 
only supported by a consciousness of spotless innocence, but had before 
him the certain prospect of a speedy resurrection from the dead, of exal- 
tation to the right hand of God, and of being a king and high priest forev- 
er unto all his people. Still, he was in such an agony at the prospect of 
the cross, as to sweat as it were drops of blood, Luke 22: 44. And when 
actually enduring the sufferings which he had anticipated, his exclamation 
(Matt. 27 : 46) shews that he had not over-estimated the dreadful hour. 

If Jesus died as a common virtuous sufferer, or merely as a martyr to 
the truth, without any vicarious suffering laid upon him, then is his death 
a most unaccountable event; i. e. in respect to the manner of his beha- 
viour while suffering it; and it must be admitted that multitudes of hum- 
ble, sinful, weak, and very imperfect disciples of Christianity, have sur- 
passed their Master in the fortitude and collected firmness and calm com- 
placency, which are requisite to triumph over the pangs of a dying hour. 
But who can well believe this? Or who can regard Jesus as a simple 
sufferer in the ordinary way, upon the cross, and explain the mysteries of 
his dreadful horror before and during the hours of crucifixion ? 

Such then was the εὐλάβεια, N47, object of dread, to which our text 
adverts. But how was Jesus εἰσακουσϑ εἰς, delivered from it? Pierce in 
his commentary says, that he was delivered by being raised from the 
dead and advanced to glory. But this would make the object of fear or 
dread to be, that he should remain in the state of the dead. This fear 
we can hardly suppose Jesus to have entertained, inasmuch as he had of- 
ten foretold to his disciples, not only his death, but his resurrection and 
exaltation to glory. Nor could it be the sufferings of the cross that he 
was delivered from, for he endured them to a dreadful degree. What 
then was it, in respect to which he was εἰσακουσϑείς, heard or delivered 2 
The context necessarily limits the hearing or deliverance to something in 
his petitions which appertained to suffering, which was an object of dread. 
What could it be, but the dread of sinking under the agony of being de- 
serted by his Father? Matt. 27:46. Great as his agony was, he never 
refused to bear it; nor did he shrink from tasting the bitter cup, Luke 
22: 42. Matt. 26:39. And does not Luke 22: 43 explain our εἰσαπκουσ- 
ϑεὶς ἀπὸ εὐλαβείας 3 “There appeared unto him an angel from heaven 
strengthening him, ἐνισχύων αὐτόν." This was the only kind of deliver- 
ance he sought for, or on the whole desired; Luke 22: 42, πλὴν μὴ τὸ ϑὲ- 
λημά wou ἀλλὰ τὸ σὸν γενέσϑω. The dread in question was, like all his 
other sufferings, incident to his human nature; and fact shews, that he 
suffered under it to a high degree ; but he did not shrink from it, and so 
he was heard or delivered in respect to the object of his petition in regard 
to it. 

In the explanation of a passage so difficult, confidence would be unbe- 
coming. I can only say: If this be not the right interpretation of it, 1 am 


ignorant of its true meaning, and will most thankfully receive from any 
one a more probable interpretation. 


Excursus XII. nes. 6: 4—6. 


EXCURSUS XII. 


Heb. 6:4—6. ᾿δύνατον γὰρ τοὺς anak φωτισϑέντας, γευσαμένους 
τε τῆς δωρεᾶς ἐπουρανίου καὶ μετόχους γενηϑέντας πνεύματος ἀγί- 
ov, καὶ χαλὸν γευσαμένους ϑεοὺ ῥῆμα, δυνάμεις τὲ μέλλοντος αἰώ- 
νος, καὶ παραπεσόντας, πάλιν ἀνακχαινίζειν εἰς μετάνοιαν. 


But does the whole paragraph pertain to real Christians, or to those 
who are such only by profession? ΤῸ the former, beyond all reasonable 
doubt. For how could the apostle so solemnly warn those who were 
mere professors of Christianity, against defection and apostasy? Defection 
from what? From a graceless condition and from a state of hypocrisy. 
Such must be the answer, if mere professors (and not possessors) of Chris- 
tianity be addressed. But mere professors, instead of being cautioned 
against defection from the state in which they are, are every where de- 
nounced in language of the severest reprobation. See Rey. 3: 15, 16, 
and the denunciations of the Saviour against the Pharisees. 

Moreover the language employed to describe the condition of the per- 
sons in question, shews that the writer is addressing those whom he takes 
to be real Christians. E. g. μετόχους oes πνεύματος ἁγίου, καλὸν γευσα- 
μένους ϑεοῦ ὁἣῆμα. Above all, πάλιν ἀνακαινίζειν εἰς μετάνοιαν ; for how 
could he speak of being again renewed by repentance, if he did not address 
them as once having been renewed by it ? 

The nature of the crime, too, and the awful denunciation with which 
it is threatened, shews that something peculiar is attached to the case 
which the writer is describing. Sinners, who have been taught the doc- 
trines of religion and yet renounce their external respect for it, are man- 
ifestly not without the pale of God’s mercy ; at least, they are not so con- 
sidered in the Scriptures generally, and fact shews that they are not. It 
is a peculiar and aggravated case, then, which is here stated ; and what 
other case can it be, than that of apostasy from a state of saving knowl- 
edge of Christ and his gospel? Nor is such a case at all without a par- 
allel in the Seriptures. Manifestly such an one is stated in Heb. 10: 
26—32; also in 2 Pet. 2: 20—22; in Ezek. 18: 24. 33: 12,13. 3: 20, 
and in many other passages of the Bible. It is implied in every warning 
and in every commination addressed to the righteous ; and surely the Bi- 
ble is filled with both of these, from the beginning to the end. What is 
implied, when our Saviour in his Sermon on the mount urges upon his 
disciples, i. e. the apostles as well as other disciples (see Luke 6: 12—20), 
the duty of cutting off a right hand and of plucking out a right eye that 
offends; and this, on penalty of being cast into hell? Matt. 5: 29, 30. 
Is this penalty really threatened ; or is it only a pretence of threatening, 
something spoken merely in terrorem ὁ Can we hesitate as to the answer 
which must be given to this question ? 

But if we admit the penalty to be really threatened, then the implication 


Excursus XIII. nes. 7: 9. aa 


is the same as in the passage before us, viz. that Christians are addressed as 
exposed to incur the penalty of the divine law by sinning. In our text, they 
are surely addressed as exposed to fall into a state in which there is no 
hope of a renewal by repentance. Whatever may be true in the divine 
purposes, as to the final salvation of all those who are once truly regener- 
ated, (and this doctrine I feel constrained to admit), yet nothing can be 
plainer, than that the sacred writers have every where addressed saints in 
the same manner as they would address those, whom they considered as 
constantly exposed to fall away and to perish forever. It cannot be de- 
nied that all the warnings and awful comminations directed against cas- 
es of defection, are addressed to Christians, in the New Testament, which 
could be addressed to them supposing them to be liable every hour to sin 
beyond the hope of being renewed by repentance. hatever theory may 
be adopted in explanation of this subject, as a matter of fact there can be 
no doubt, that Christians are to be solemnly and earnestly warned against 
the danger of apostasy and consequent final perdition. What else is the 
object of the whole epistle to the Hebrews, except a warning against apos- 
tasy ἢ \In this all agree. But this involves all the difficulties that can be 
raised by metaphysical reasonings, in regard to the perseverance of the 
saints. For why should the apostle warn true Christians, (and such he 
surely believed there were among the Hebrews, 6:9), against defection 
and perdition 2° My answer would be : Because God treats Christians as 
free agents, as’rational beings; because he guards them against defection 
not by mere physical power, but by moral means adapted to their natures 
as free and rational agents. Let every man speculate as he pleases on 
this subject, when he addresses Christians by way of warning, he will in- 
evitably fall into the same modes of address. And plainly he ought so 
to do; for thus have all the sacred writers done, and thus did the Saviour 
himself. ἃ 


EXCURSUS XIII. 


wy > ͵ 2 U 3 , ’ ’ > , 
Heb. 7:3. dnarwg, ἀμήτωρ, ayeveadoynros, μήτε ἀρχὴν ἡμέρων 
͵ ~ , »” > ᾿ ΝῊ ~ <~ ~ ~ 5 
μῆτε ζωὴς τέλος ἔχων, ἀφωμοιωμένος δὲ τῷ υἱῷ τοῦ ϑεοῦ, μένει 
« ‘ > MS ' 
ἱερεὺς εἰς τὸ διηνεκὲς. 


The description of Melchizedek in ν. 3, has been interpreted in a vari- 
ety of ways, so as to give rise to many diverse opinions respecting the 
person introduced here by this name. I shall very briefly exhibit some 
of them, without delaying to examine them. 

(1) The Hieracitae, (so called from Hierax, Epiphan. Haeres. LXVII.), 
held Melchizedek to be the Holy Spirit. Jerome undertakes to confute 
them, Epist. ad Evagrium. 


578 Excursus XIV. nes. 7:9, 10. 

(2) The Melchizedeciani, (the author of which sect was Theodotus or 
Thomas), held Melchizedek to be one of the δυνάμεις of God, emanated 
from him, superior to Christ, and after the model of which Christ was 
formed. 

(3) It is an ancient opinion, (as Epiph. Haeres. LX VII. testifies), that 
Melchizedek was the Son of God, i. e. the Logos; the same who appeared 
to Abrabam and to the patriarchs, etc, This opinion was held by Am- 
brose; and it has been defended in recent times, by Molinaeus, Cunaeus, 
Gaillard, Outrein, Hottinger, Stark, Petersen, and others. 

(4) Origen, and after him Didymus, held Melchizedek to be an angel. 

(5) Others have held that Melchizedek was a man formed before the 
creation, out of spiritual and not of earthy matter. 

(6) Melchizedek was Enoch, sent again to live on earth after the flood. 
So Hen. Hulsius. 

(7) Melchizedek was Shem, the son of Noah. So Targum Jon. and 
Jerus.; so also Lyranus, Tostatus, Eugubinus, Cajetan, Genebrard, Tor- 
niello, Villalpandus, of the Catholic Church; and among Protestants, 
Peucer, Pelargus, Brughton, Melancthon, Rungius, and others. 

(8) Melchizedek was Job. So G. Kohlreis. 

(9) It is unknown who he was. So Lyser, Gesner, Baldwin, Crenius, 
Buddaeus, and others. 

(10) Melchizedek was a righteous and peaceful king, atworshipper and 
priest of the most high God, in the land of Canaan ; a friend of Abraham, 
and of a rank elevated above him. 

This last opinion lies upon the face of the sacred record, in Gen. xrv. 
and in Heb. vit.; and it is the only one which can be defended on any 
tolerable grounds of interpretation. What can be more improbable than 
all the opinions above mentioned, with the exception of this? The most 
popular opinion among them all, viz. that Melchizedek was Christ, would 
of course force us to adopt this interpretation, viz. that ‘ Christ is like unto 
himself? or that a comparison is formally instituted by our author, be- 
tween Christ and himself ;—“ cujus mentio est refutatio.” 


EXCURSUS XIV. 


Heb. 7:9, 10.. Kal, ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν, διὰ ABouau καὶ Avi, o δεκάτας 
’ < ’ Alec \ > ~ 2 ee ~ \ 5 « 
λαμβάνων, δεδεκατωται" ἔτη γὰρ ἐν τῇ ὀσφυὶ τοῦ πατρὸς ἦν, ὅτε 
t > - ς ᾿ 
συνηντησὲν αὐτῳ 0 ἤ7ελχισεδέκ. 


For a Hebrew, this assertion would less need an ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν than for 
us, Whose modes of thinking and reasoning in regard to genealogies, de- 
scent, and rank, are so very different from those of the oriental nations. 
Since Abraham was deemed, by his posterity, to be the patriarch and head 
of all his descendants, in such a sense as to hold a pre-eminence in rank 


Excursus XIV. nes. 7: 9, 10. 579 


above them, a proof that he acknowledged his inferiority to Me!chizedek, 
by paying tithes to him, was a proof that his descendants must of course 
be inferior to Melchizedek. The statement in vs. 9 and 10, is built upon 
the oriental modes of estimating descent and rank. Since Levi, who was 
of the posterity of Abraham, might be reckoned as then virtually in the 
patriarch ; and since he descended from him, and therefore could not be 
regarded as of a rank above him; it would follow, according to the Jewish 
mode of reasoning, that the priesthood of Melchizedek was of a rank su- 
perior to that of Levi. 

If it be said: ‘We do not need such considerations as these to establish 
the superior priesthood of Christ; neither do we, in this manner, count 
upon genealogy, and descent, and rank ; I freely assent. But then I am 
not able to see, why it should at all detract from the propriety or the 
weight of the epistle to the Hebrews, that the writer has fully met the 
exigencies of the case which called forth the epistle itself; and met them 
in just such a way as was adapted to the condition of his readers, and the 
modes of reasoning to which they were accustomed. If they attached 
high importance and dignity to the Levitical priesthood, because the Le- 
vites descended from Abraham, (as they surely did), and this opinion 
served to fill their minds with difficulty in regard to admitting, that the 
priesthood of Christ could supersede that of Aaron; then was it directly 
to the writer’s purpose, to remove this prejudice, and to shew them, that 
according to their own grounds of argument and computation, Melchize- 
dek must be superior to the Levitical priests, and to Abraham himself. If 
now in doing this, (which all must admit was necessary and proper to be 
done), the writer has met their prejudices with arguments specially adapt- 
ed to this purpose, and the force of which they must acknowledge, if true 
to their own principles ; and at the same time he has averred nothing which 
is adapted to inculcate error, or to mislead others who were educated in a 
different manner from the Hebrews; then has he done what every wise 
and prudent man ought to do, under circumstances like his. And if sev- 
eral of his arguments are not now needed by us, and cannot well be em- 
ployed by us at the present time with any particular efficacy, this makes 
nothing against his discretion or against the validity of his reasoning. We 
all enjoy the light which has been shed around us by the whole of the 
New Testament. Of this the Hebrews had little or nothing. We are 
educated with views and feelings entirely different, in many respects, from 
those in which they were brought up. We do not, therefore, need to be 
addressed and reasoned with in all respects just as they did. Many of 
their prejudices we have not; many of their doubts with respect to the 
superiority of Christianity over the Mosaic religion, we never entertained. 
Many things, then, which were said with great force and propriety to 
them, by our author, cannot be addressed to us with the same pertinency, 
nor felt with the same power. 

Let the reasoning in the epistle to the Hebrews be judged of equitably, 
by taking into view such considerations as these, and all difficulties of any 
serious import, will, as fam inclined to believe, be removed from the 
mind of a serious, candid, and intelligent reader. Such considerations, 
too, might have saved the many inuendos, (with which we meet in not a 


580 Excursus XV. nes. 8: 5. 


few of the recent commentaries on our epistle), that the writer has built 
nearly all his arguments upon allegory and accommodation ; an accommo- 
dation which allows the whole force of all the erroneous methods of Jew- 
ish reasoning, and conforms to it merely in order to prevent the apostasy 
of professed Christians. I cannot acquiesce in the latitude of this opinion ; 
nor can I well admit, that a sacred writer would make use of an argument, 
which in its nature he knows to be wholly erroneous and ‘destitute.of 
force, for the sake of persuading men to embrace Christianity or to con- 
tinue in the profession of it. Would not this be “doing evil, that good 
might come 2” But I feel no objection to admitting, that argumentum ad 
hominem may be employed, for the sake of confuting errorists and expos- 
ing their inconsistency. The Saviour himself plainly resorts to this, in 
some cases; see Matt. 12: 27. Luke 11:19. So in our epistle, it cannot 
be deemed irrelevant or improper, if the writer shews the Jews, that from 
their own modes of counting descent and reckoning precedence in regard 
to rank, Melchizedek (and consequently Jesus) was a priest of an order 
superior to the Levites. For substance, this is done in the chapter under 
examination. Yet there is nothing conceded here, which can in any way 
endanger the principles of truth. At the same time, after the explanations 
that have been made, it is hazarding nothing to say, that we have now 
more convincing arguments than those here used, to establish the superi- 
ority of Christ’s priesthood. But, let it be remembered, we owe them to 
the New Testament which we have in our hands, and which the Hebrews 
had not. Many things, therefore, needed by them in their condition, and 
with the greatest propriety urged upon them, are less applicable and less 
important to us, merely because our circumstances differ so much from 
theirs. 

If the reader wants confirmation, in regard to the statement above 
made, of the Jewish views respecting the precedency of Abraham, let him 
peruse Matt. 3:9. John 8: 52—58. Luke 16: 22—25. 


EXCURSUS XV. 


“ ‘ \ ' ' ‘ ‘ ' \ 
Heb. 8:5. Ove yao, φησὶ, ποιησης παντα κατὰ τὸν τύπον τον δειχ- 
ϑέντα Got ἐν τῷ ὄρει. 


It has been asked: In what way was this τύπος exhibited to Moses? 
Was it by ocular vision; or by suggestion to the mind; or by words com- 
municated to Moses, descriptive of the form in which the tabernacle should 
be constructed? ‘The answer to all such questions is very easy ; viz. that 
the subject is beyond the boundaries of human knowledge, so that we can 
know nothing more respecting it than what Moses himself has told us. 
But this is merely an assertion of the fact, that the τύπος was exhibited to 


Excursus XV. περ. 8: 5. 581 


a . ...-.-...............- ὃ... ΄΄΄ὃ-΄΄΄ ὦ Ζ ὦὁ ὁ... 


ἫΝ We says nothing at all of the manner in which it was exhibited. 
Consequently the fact is all that we can know ; and surely it is all that we 
need to know; for of what importance to us can-the manner be in which 
this revelation was made? The passage in Acts 7: 44, which speaks of 
the τύπον that Moses ἑωράκει, determines nothing; as it is not said whether 
he saw in a bodily or mental manner, and the word δωράκει is plainly 
applicable to either. In 1 Chron. 28:19, David, after having drawn a 
plan for the temple, says: All which is in the writing from the hand of the 
Lord, i. e. made by divine assistance, DW, he taught me, even all the 
work n24N7, τύπου, i. 6. of the plan. Yet here was no ocular disclosure. 
Consequently, the words used in our text will not determine the manner 
of the communication to Moses ; and therefore we are not to consider it 
as capable of being definitely determined. 

It follows, of course, that the exhibition of a visible temple in heaven to 
the view of Moses, of a temple having form and locality, cannot be as- 
sumed ; unless we build upon that which has no foundation to support it. 
The most that we can know of this subject is, that on mount Sinai, the 
Lord revealed to Moses the τύπον of the tabernacle which he was to 
build ; and that this is merely a ὑπόδειγμα and σκιά of the heavenly one. 
Is it a ὑπόδειγμα then in a material sense, or in a spiritual and moral one 3 
In the latter, without any reasonable doubt ; for so the whole nature of 
the argument leads us to conclude. The apostle is not comparing one 
material tabernacle on earth, with another more magnificent one of the 
same kind in heaven; but a material earthly one, with one which the 
Lord made, which is οὐ χειροποίητος and ov ταύτης τῆς κτίσεως, 9: 11, 1. 6. 
which is spiritual and heavenly in its nature. The whole representation 
then comes to this: ‘In heaven are truly and really all those things, 
which the Jewish tabernacle and temple with all their rites and offerings 
only adumbrated. What is there, is reality in the highest and noblest 
sense ; what is here, is comparatively only shadow and effigy. Christ does 
really there, what the high-priest has been accustomed to do figuratively 
and symbolically here. The temple here faintly represents (is ὑπόδειγμα 
and σκιά of) real spiritual existences and occurrences there,’ 

The very nature of the heavenly world, and of the apostle’s argument, 
is sufficient to shew that this is all which can be rationally deduced from 
the language which he employs. It would be just as rational to maintain 
that God has a local habitation, and a corporeal form visible to the eye, 
because the Scriptures speak of his fired dwelling place in heaven (725972), 
and of his hands and eyes and face and heart, as it would be to suppose 
that the temple above, in which Christ ministers, possesses form and is 
composed of material substance, like that which was built by the Jews. 
This was merely σκιά ; that is ἀλήϑεια, ὑπόστασις, i. 6. of heavenly, spirit~ 
ual, divine ὑπόστασις, not of earthly, visible, local matter. 

How to build the earthly tabernacle, Moses was instructed on the mount. 
But whether a form of the same was presented to his vision, bodily or 
mental ; or whether he was taught by words what the τύπος should be, 
does not (as we have seen) appear from Scripture ; nor is it important for 
us to know. Enough to know, that the earthly tabernacle is related to 
the heavenly one, only as shadow to substance ; and consequently that our 

74 


582 Excursus XVI. ues. 9: 4. 


great high-priest above, is exalted to a rank unspeakably ΡΝ thin that 
of the Jewish high-priest. 

All which Moses and the people of Israel saw upon mount Sinai, the 
darkness and smoke, the fire, the cloud, and the lightnings ; the voice of 
the trumpet which they heard, and the quaking of the earth which they 
felt, (Ex. 19: 17—20. 20: 18—21. 24: 1, 2, 9, 10, 15—18,. Heb. 12: 18— 
21); were manifestly symbols merely of the divine presence, adapted to 
inspire the people with reverence and awe. In the same manner, the 
ΤΏΙ or τύπος of the tabernacle to be built, was a symbol of what is 
heay enly or divine. It may just as well be argued from the clouds and 
darkness and fire and lightning and thunder and earthquake of Sinai, 
that all these belong materially and formally to the heavenly world, as that 
the τύπος exhibited to Moses, was an actually visible and material part 
of heaven. 

If now the tabernacle built by Moses, the greatest of all the Jewish 
prophets, Heb. 3: 2, was nothing more than an aytitumog of that in heav- 
en, Heb. 9: 23, 24, a mere σκιά of it, 8:5; then the temple built by Solo- 
mon, which was only an imitation of this, 1 Καὶ, 8: 10—19. 1 Chron. 28: 
19; and that in after-times, built by Zerubbabel, Ez. 5: 1 seq., and which 
was less magnificent, Ez. 3; 12, 13; must also be merely ἀγτέτυπου and 
σκιαί, of that temple, of which Jesus is the priest. Consequently, the 


greater dignity of his priestly office may be obviously inferred from this 
comparison. 


EXCURSUS XVI. 
Heb. 9: 4. Χρυσοῦν ἔχουσα ϑυμιατήριον. 


There is great difficulty and much perplexity among commentators, in 
regard to the ϑυμιατήριον here mentioned. Moses makes no mention of 
such a sacred utensil, as appertaining to the most holy place ; neither does 
the description of Solomon’s temple (modelled after the tabernacle) con- 
tain any information respecting it. Θυμιατήριον, in its general sense, in- 
dicates any thing which contains ϑυμίαμα or incense ; so that it may be 
applied either to an altar of incense, or to any pot or vessel adapted for 
offering incense by burning it. Josephus applies ϑυμιατήριον to the altar 
of incense, Antiq. ILI. 6,8; and so some have applied the word in the 
phrase under consideration. But it is a strong if not conclusive objection 
to this, that the altar of incense was before the vail of the most holy place, 
and not within it, Ex. 830: 1—6. 40:5, 26. Moreover this altar is called, 
in Hebrew, mache 1 ΠΞῚ3, Ex. 37:25. 2 Chron, 26: 19,16; may 
nope, Ex. 40:5; or nb OP Wop 7317, Ex. 30: 1. in Ga it is 
named ϑυσιαστήριον, and ϑυσιαστήριον ϑυμιάματος. On this altar, more- 
over, daily offerings of incense were to be made, both morning and even- 


Excursus XVI. nen. 9: 4, 583 


ing, Ex. 30: 1—8. The horns of it, once in each year, were to be sprin- 
kled with blood, viz. on the great day of atonement, Ex. 30:10. But I 
am unable to find any place, which declares that this altar was carried 
within the vail, on the day just named, by the priest who offered incense 
before the Lord. On the contrary, the incense offered on that day, was 
strewed on a vessel of burning coals or a censer, i. e. pan or fire-pan, 
which the priest held in his hand, and carried with him into the most holy 
place, Lev. 16: 12—14. The name of the vessel was mma, Lev. 16: 
12. Ex. 27: 3. 38: 3. 1 K. 7:50. 2 Chron. 4: 22. In 2 Ghion: 26: 19, 
this vessel is named nm Op, and again in Ezek. 8: 11; in both which 
places the Septuagint have ϑυμιατήριον. Now nothing can be plainer, 
than that the ΓΙ ‘and nm 0p were different from the altar of incense, 
noe Mai ‘Upon this, on the morning and evening of every day, 
offerings of incense were made; and this lbs stood before the vail, Ex. 
30: G28 On the day of atonement, also, the horns of it were to be 
sprinkled with blood, Ex. 30: 10. 40: 5,26. But the incense before the 
Lord, which was to be offered in the inner sanctuary, was offered upon a 
ann, pan of burning coals, Lev. 16: 19, Uzziah was about to burn in- 
cense in this manner when the priests withstood him, 2 Chron. 26: 16—, 
19. Comp. also the case of Nadab and Abihu, Lev. 10: 1. 

That the incense altar was stationary, is plain from the dimensions as- 
signed to it in Ex. 80: 1, 2, viz. a cubit (i. 6. 1,8, foot) long and broad, 
and two cubits in height. The removal of this by he high priest, into the 
most holy place, is out of question, when we consider that it was made of 
solid materials, probably metal of some kind. But the censers (fire-pans) 
were hand-utensils, constructed for the very purpose of taking coals from 
the altar of burnt offering, (where the fire was never suffered to become 
extinguished), for the various uses of the temple, Lev. 16:12. The whole 
difficulty then, in our verse, amounts to this, viz. whether the χρυσοῦν 
ϑυμιατήριον here mentioned, was laid up or deposited in the most holy 
place. That there were several ϑυμιατήρια or mma, is certain from 
Ex, 27: 3, 38:3. That the mn772 or ϑυμιατήριον, which was employed 
by the high priest, was χρυσοῦν i.e. gilded, or (if you will) golden, is highly 
probable ; indeed, one would suppose, quite certain, seeing that the altar 
of incense, (which was designed only for the every day’s offering of in- 
cense), was to be overlaid with pure gold, Ex. 30:3. Much more may 
we well suppose, that the censer, (carried by the high priest into the 
ἅγια ἁγίων on the most solemn of all days, viz. the day of atonement for 
the whole nation), was covered with gold, i. 6. was χρυσοῦν as the apostle 
calls it. Moses, indeed, has not given us any particular description of 
such a censer; nor is it mentioned particularly in the description of Solo- 
mon’s temple ; nor is it any where said in the Old Testament that such a 
censer was laid up in the most holy place. But as nothing can be more 
probable, than that the censer was χρυσοῦν ; so nothing can be more pro- 
bable than that it was deposited in the inner sanctuary. That a censer 
used for the most sacred of all the temple rites, on a day the most solemn 
of all the Jewish festival days, should be used for the common and every 
day occasions of temple service, is highly improbable ; especially when 
we consider that every thing pertaining to the service of the inner sanctua- 


584 Excursus XVII. nes. 9: 4. 
ry, Was regarded in a light that corresponded with the designation of that 
place, viz. ἅγια ἁγίων or DIP WIP. 

Besides, the writer of our epistie, so intimately acquainted with every 
thing that pertained to the temple, to its rites, and indeed to the whole 
Jewish economy, cannot be reasonably supposed to have mistaken the 
fact, relative to the materials of which the censer used on the great day of 
expiation was made, or to the place where it was deposited. How easily 
would those whom he addressed have detected his error, and been led, of 
course, to think lightly of his accuracy, when matters so obvious escaped 
his notice! In short, all the objection against the account of our author 
is, that the Old Testament is silent in regard to the two particulars about 
the censer which he mentions, viz. that it was χρυσοῦν, and that it was 
deposited in the ἅγια ἁγίων. But surely silence in such a case, is no con- 
tradiction; and the nature of the whole case is such, that there can be no 
rational doubt that our author has made a correct statement. The want 

‘of correctness here would have argued an ignorance on his part, which 
would have destroyed all his credit with those whom he addressed. 

If an apology be needed for dwelling so long on this subject, any one 
may find it by consulting the commentators, and learning the difficulties 
which have been made about it, and the charges of inaccuracy or failure 
of memory, which have been made against the writer of our epistle on 
account of the clause χρυσοῦν ἔχουσα ϑυμιατήριον. These have been re- 
cently and often repeated by Bleek, in his work to which so frequent ref- 
erence has been made in the Introduction. 


EXCURSUS XVII. 


> 2 ’ ~ ” s ’ c c 
Heb. 9:4. “Lv 7, στάμνος χρυσὴ ἔχουσα τὸ μᾶννα, καὶ ἡ ῥάβδος 
3 x c c μ “Ὁ ν 
Aavav ἡ βλαστήσασα, καὶ ai πλάκὲς τῆς διαϑήκης. 


But there is another difficulty in regard to the phrase under considera- 
tion. [Ὁ 15 said in] K. 8:9 and 2 Chron. 5: 10, that “ there was nothing 
in the ark, save the two tables which Moses put therein at Horeb.” This, 
no doubt, is true; but our author is speaking, in Heb. 9: 4, of the taber- 
nacle as constructed and furnished by Moses, and not of the temple built 
some five hundred years afterwards; still less, of the second temple, 
which, after the burning of the first by Nebuchadnezzar, must have lack- 
ed even the tables of the testimony or law. ‘These were probably destroy- 
ed at the time when the first temple was consumed ; since we have no 
authentic intelligence respecting them afterwards. It is probable, too, 
that the first temple lacked both the pot of manna and the rod of Aaron ; 
at least we have no account of their being deposited in it. The probabili- 
ty is, that the ark, during its many removals by the Israelites after it was 


Excursus XVIII. ues. 9: 14. 585 


constructed, and in particular during its captivity by the Philistines, 1 
Sam. 4:11. 5:1. 6: 1, 21, was deprived of these sacred deposits ; for 
we hear no more concerning them. Be this as it may, our author is fully 
justified, when, in describing the tabernacle, he attributes to it what the 
Pentateuch does ; and that the pot of manna and Aaron’s rod were laid up 
in the most holy place, and in the ark of the covenant, may be seen in Ex. 

16: 32—34. Num. 17:10 (17: 95). In both these passages, the Hebrew 
runs thus: Laid up nity 2D>, before the testimony, i.e. either before 
the ark containing the testimony ; or (which is altogether more probable), 
before the testimony itself, i. e. the two tables which were in the ark, Con- 
sequently they were laid up with the testimony, i.e. the two tables; and 
the account given by our author is strictly correct. 

It will be recollected, too, that it is the tabernacle made by Moses, that 
be is describing throughout. As this was patterned after that which 
Moses “ had seen upon the mount,” and was built by workmen who had 
particular divine assistance, Ex. 36: 1, it was of course regarded by the 
Jews as the most perfect structure of all that had been erected for the 
worship of God. Perfect as it was, however, the apostle labours to shew - 
that it was a mere shadow or image of the heavenly tabernacle in which 
Jesus ministers. 


EXCURSUS XVIII. 


© x ' c ‘ ’ > 
Heb. 9: 14. “Og διὰ πνεύματος αἰωνίου ἑαυτὸν προσήνεγκεν ἄμωμον 
τῷ ϑεῷ. 


Διὰ πνεύματος αἰωνίου is a difficult phrase, about the meaning of which 
a great variety of opinions have been formed. Some understand it of the 
Holy Spirit, as the third person in the Trinity; and some manuscripts 
and versions read «yiov instead of αἰωνίου. But these are not of any con- 
siderable weight, and the reading αἰωνίου is almost universally received. 
But ἁγίου would seem to be indispensable to that sense of the passage 
which has just been mentioned ; this appellation being every where given 
to the Holy Spirit in his hypostatical nature. Nor would the interpreta- 
tion, impulsu Spiritus Sancti, seem to accord with the many passages of 
Scripture which represent the death of Jesus as altogether a voluntary 
and free-will offering, made by his own benevolent Spirit; see John 10: 
17,18. 14:31. 10: 11,15. Phil. 2:8. Heb. 2:9. Still, this would not 
exclude the idea, that the influence of the divine Spirit was efficacious in 
rendering Jesus a spotless victim, adapted to constitute an all-atoning sac- 
rifice. Of this, more in the sequel. 

Beza, Ernesti, Capell, Outrein, Wolf, Cramer, Carpzoff, Morus, Schulz, 
and others, understand πνεύματος of the divine nature of Christ. But al- 
though the offering of Christ might be rendered of the highest value, on 


586 Excursus XVIII. nes. 9: 14. 


account of the dignity of his person and in consequence of the higher na- 
ture which dwelt in him, yet the sacred writers represent him as having 
made atonement in his kuman nature, not in his divine; Heb. 2: 14, 17, 
18. Col,-1: 21, 22. Phil. 2:6—8. Heb. 10: 5,10. 1 Pet. 2:24. But in- 
dependently of this consideration, instances are wanting satisfactorily to 
prove that πνεῦμα ἅγιον or αἰώνιον, when applied to Christ, designates 
simply his divine nature as such. It will be seen, in the sequel, that this 
phrase thus applied, designates the glorified state of Christ, in distinction 
from his state of humiliation. 

Others, as Grotius, Limborch, Heinrichs, Schleusner, Rosenmiiller, 
Koppe, Jaspis, ete., consider πγεῦμα αἰώνιον as endless or immortal life, 
comparing it with 7: 16. They place this in antithesis to the perishable 
nature of the beasts that were slain in sacrifice, and which are mentioned 
in the preceding verse. The antithesis would then be thus: ‘If mere 
perishable brutes, slain in sacrifice, effected external sanctification; how 
much more shall the offering of Christ, endowed with eternal life or with 
an immortal spirit, purify the conscience, ete.’ But this view of the sub- 
ject would represent the efticacy of the atonement made by Christ, as de- 
pending on his endless life; while the Scriptures always represent it as 
depending on his sufferings and death. See vs. 15—28 in the sequel. 

Doederlein, Storr, and others, represent πνεῦμα αἰώνιον as meaning the 
exalted and glorified person, or condition of the Saviour, in the passage be- 
fore us. They appeal to other passages in support of this. Thusin Rom. 
1: 3, 4, κατὰ πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης appears to designate a state of distinction 
from κατὰ σαρκά, the human nature of Christ that was descended from 
David ; ἐκ σπέρματος “1εβὶδ, κατὰ σάρκα...-.- υἱοῦ ϑεοῦ ἐν δυνάμει κατα 
VE vu a Kara πνεῦμα eyuootyyg may then here designate the condi- 
tion in which Christ was the exalted and powerful Son a God, viov ϑεοῦ 
ἐν δυνάμει, comp. Phil. 2: 8, 9. Heb. 2: 9, 10; i. 6. it may be descriptive 
of that spiritual majesty (ἀγιωσύνη, 345, 15) or eraltation, which belongs to 
the Saviour in the heavenly world. So 1 Pet. 3: 18, ϑανατωϑεὶς [Xouo- 
τὸς] μὲν σαρκὶ, ζωοποιηϑεὶς δὲ πνεύματι, i.e. in his incarnate nature, sub- 
jected to sufferings and death; in his spiritual [heavenly] nature or con- 
dition, enjoying happiness and glory. So moreover in 1 Cor. 15: 45, 
the last Adam, i. 6. Christ, is called πγεῦμα ζωοποιοῦν, in distinction from 
the ψυχὴ ζῶσα attributed to the first Adam. This could not be because 
Christ had an immortal soul, and Adam had only a living animal soul; for 
Adam too was immortal. It would seem that πνεῦμα and ψυχή, in this 
last passage, both designate a spiritual or immortal nature ; but πνεῦμα 
here designates such a nature of a higher order, and the antithesis is more 
fully Hinge by applying ζωοποιοῦν to ithe one, and ζῶσαν to the other, i. 6. 
life-giving and living. With these texts, they suppose the one in our 
verse may be classed; and the sense must then be given to it which I 
have just expressed, viz. in his eternal pneumatic state or condilion, i. 6. in 
his glorified heavenly state, Christ presented his offering, etc. As to διά, 
there is no difficulty in making such a translation of it. It is frequently 
used with the Gen. in order to denote the quality, condition, circumstances, 
or means, that have relation to any thing or person ; see on this usage, un- 
der 9: 12 in the notes above ; also Matthaei’s Gramm. § 580. e. 


Excursus XVIII. nes. 9: 14. 


087 


But although the sense which arises out of this exegesis is good, and 
quite to the purpose of the writer, (whose object it is to shew how much 
superior the sacrifice of Christ is to that of goats and bullocks), yet a 
doubt still remains whether διὰ πνεύματος ἁγίου does not designate rather 
the means by which the sacrifice of Christ was ἄμωμον, than, the state or 
condition in which such a sacrifice was offered. Does not the writer here 
design to say that the spotless nature of the victim, offered διὰ πνεύματος 
αἰωνίου, by an influence of the Spirit of God which was perpetual or which 
always endures, was the true means of efficacious atonement ? It is diffi- 
cult to decide this question; for one may truly say, that the exegesis of 
Storr, etc., agrees well with the tenor of vs. 11, 12, which represent Christ 
as making his offering in the temple above, and of course in his exalted 
and glorified state. And so, in the former edition of this work, I con- 
strued the passage under consideration. 

On reconsidering the whole subject, I am now rather inclined (with 
Winzer, Kuinoel, and others) to construe διὰ πνεύματος ἁγίου according to 
the common usus loquendi of the New Testament, viz. as meaning divine 
influence. When I look at the passages which assert that Christ was fill- 
ed with this, and acted under it, I can hardly refuse to apply the princi- 
ple developed in them to the present case. Compare, for example, Matt. 
4:1. Mark 1: 12. Luke 4: 1. Matt. 12: 28. Luke 4: 18. Matt. 3: 16, 11. 
Luke 3: 22. John 1: 32, 33. John 3: 34, comp. 1: 16; to which more 
texts of the like tenor might easily be added. There is no difficulty, then, 
in supposing the writer to assert here, that Jesus offered himself a spotless 
victim to God through or with a divine influence, and an influence not 
of a temporary and fleeting nature, but of eternal efficacy. The efficacy 
of the blood of goats and bullocks, and of the water of purification, was 
only temporary, and needed to be continually renewed. The πρεύμα by 
which Christ was filled, and filled ov ἐκ μέτρου (John 3: 34), in the first 
place rendered him perfectly holy, and so a spotless (ἄμωμον) victim ; and 
secondly, this influence was perpetual (αἰώνιον), i. 6. it never ceased, and 
its efficacy therefore in preparing an appropriate victim for the great sac- 
rifice, was such as made the sacrifice adequate when once offered (comp. 
ν. 12), to the accomplishment of all that was needed. It is plain, [ think, 
that the epithet aiwriou is thrown in here, in order to designate that the 
πνεῦμα (divine influence) in question was of an enduring efficacy, in the 
sense already stated. In this way we can account for it, that αἰώνιον 
should be applied to πγεῦμα, in this particular case, while ἅγιον is the 
epithet in all @thers, where an epithet is applied. 

The advantage of this interpretation is, that it has the usus loquendi 
substantially in its fayour; which, caeteris paribus, is a proper ground of 
preference. 


5838 Excursus XIX. nes. 9: 28. 


EXCURSUS XIX. 


oe ε ΄- \ oe > = 
Heb. 9:28. Οὕτω καὶ ὁ Χοιστὸς anak προσενεχϑεὶς, εἰς τὸ πολλῶν 
ἀνενεγκεῖν ἁμαρτίας. 


The importance of the phrase, and the many constructions put upon it 
that are inconsistent with the usus loquendi of the sacred writers, render 
it desirable accurately to determine its meaning. (1) To bear sin is to 
suffer the punishment due to it, i. e. to take upon one’s self the conse- 
quences of sin, or to subject one’s self to its consequences. The phrase 
is sometimes used for exposure to the consequences of sin; e. g. Lev. 5: 
17, 1, comp. vs. 3—9. 7:18. To bear iniquity (ji v2) means also, to 
be cut off from the congregation of τς people, Lev. 90: 17. Num. 9: 13; 
it means, to die or perish, Num. 18: 22, 32. Ex. 28: 43. Lev. 24: 15, 16. 
So it is sometimes employed as a general expression, to designate any 
kind of sufferings borne or inflicted in consequence of sin; as in Num. 
14: 33, 34, where in the 33d verse, ye shall bear your whoredoms means, 
ye shall bear the consequences of them ; just as in v.34, ye shall bear your 
iniquities means, ye shall bear or endure the consequences of them. Thus 
is the phrase employed, where the subject in question is one’s own sins. 
But, 

(2) To bear the sins of others, is to bear or endure the suffering or pen- 
alty due to them. So in Heb. 9: 26, ἁμαρτίας means the consequences of 
sin or penalty due to it. In Lam. 5:7, Jeremiah represents the afflicted 
people of Israel as saying: Our fathers have sinned and are no more, 
and we have borne their iniquities, 135 25 ans aha So in Ezek. 18: 19, 
20, to bear the iniquity of another means, to die or perish on his account, 
v. 20, comp. v. 17. Is. 53: 4, he bore our distresses (x2 79°), he car- 
ried [or bore] our sorrows (E50 1°2N57), is explained ‘in v.'5 by he was 
wounded for our transgressions (Aa ΒΞ sy) he he was smitten on ac- 
count of our transgressions (ἢ) 5 5 ᾿ΝΞ12). ‘So Ν Nw? means to suffer, 
Prov. 19: 19. Micah 7 : 9; as does the corresponding Greek word βαστά- 
ζω in Gal. 5: 10, and Son in Heb. 13:13. * Avegéow has the same sense 
as φέρω and Orewa when used in such a connection, and , corresponds 
to the Hebrew Nw. and =le)s So Peter says of Jesus, ἀνήνεγκε---τὰς 
ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν, in "his oan body, on the cross, 1 Pet. 2:24; to explain 
which he adds, by whose stripes ye are healed; 1. 6. Jesus suffered in his 
own body and on the cross, the penalty due to our sins; and by his suf- 
ferings, our obligation to the penalty ceases. The passage is quoted from 
15. 53: 4,5, which has the same meaning as 53: 11,12; and here we 
have, He bore their sins (5307 0n534z), he bore or carried ‘the sins of ma- 
ny (2 7)5 ΘΠΞΙ ΞΊ τ 31} A comparison of all these instances, (more might 
be adduced), will ‘serve to shew how plain and uniform the Scripture 
idiom is, in respect to the sense attached to the phrase bearing the sin ei- 
ther of one’s self or of others. It always means, either ‘ actual suffering 
of the consequences due to sin,’ or ‘exposure to suffer them, ob on to 
suffer them.’ 


Excursus XX. uss. 10: 5. 589 


That ἁμαρτίας in Heb. 9: 28 may mean, and does mean, the consequen- 
ces of sin or penalty of tt, is plain, (1) From the impossibility that the pas- 
sage here can have any other sense. The moral turpitude of our sins Je- 
sus did not take upon himself; nor did he remove it, (as it is in itself con- 
sidered) ; but the consequences of our sins he prevented by his own suffer- 
ings. (2) The corresponding Hebrew words, ὨΝῺΠ j yy , and 55, all 
mean punishment or penalty of sin, as well as sin or iniquity itself. 

The sentiment of the clause then clearly is, that Jesus by his death, 
(which could take place but once), endured the penalty that our sins de- 
served or bore the sorrows due to us. But this general expression is not 
to be understood, as if the writer meant to say, with philosophical precis- 
ion, that the sufferings of Jesus were in all respects, and considered in ev- 
ery point of view, an exact and specific quid pro quo, as it regards the pen- 
alty threatened against sin. A guilty conscience the Saviour had not ; eter- 
nal punishment fe did not suffer; nor was he ever in despair of deliver- 
ance. It is altogether unnecessary to suppose, that the writer meant to be 
understood here with metaphysical exactness. But that vicarious suffer- 
ing is here designated, seems to be an unavoidable conclusion, as well 
from the usus loquendi of the Scriptures, as from the nature of the argu- 
ment through the whole of chapters rx. and x. 


EXCURSUS XX. 


Heb. 10:5. Σώμα δὲ κατηρτίσω μοι. Ps, 40:7, %> mp D DIN, 
i, e. mine ears hast thou opened. 


But how could the Seventy render the Hebrew expression here, by 
σῶμα κατηρτίσω wor? And how could the apostle follow them in this 
rendering ; and even build an argument on such a translation, in order to 
establish the proposition that the blood of goats and bullocks could not 
avail to take away sin? Questions which have exceedingly perplexed 
commentators, and over which most of them have chosen to pass in si- 
lence. It is indeed much better to be silent, than to speak that which is 
erroneous or will mislead the unwary. Still, the ingenuous inquirer, who 
wishes to see every difficulty fairly met, is offended with silence on ἃ sub- 
ject of such a nature, and cannot well resist a secret inclination to attribute 
it more to want of knowledge, or to want of candour, than to real pru- 
dence and discretion. I am far from promising him that he will find all 
the satisfaction which he requires, in the sequel of this Excursus ; but as 
my own mind is, on the whole, satisfied with the views here suggested, it 
cannot be improper for me to submit to his consideration those things 
which have thus affected it. They may at least serve to excite him, and 
jead him to make an effort at a more satisfactory solution of the difficulties. 

75 


590 Excursus XX. ues. 10: 5. 


Cappell, Ernesti, and some other critics, strive to maintain the probabili- 
ty, that the Septuagint reading in Ps. 40: 7 was formerly ὠτίον κατηρτίσω 
tot, Which by some accident has been changed, and the text of the apos- 
tle in the New Testament adapted to it. But of this there is no proof. 
Indeed, there is manifest proof that the apostle originally wrote σῶμα in 
v. 5, by a comparison with it of his expression in v.10. The difficulty 
cannot be met then by a change of the text; much less by such a change, 
when it is not authorized by any of the laws of sound criticism, and is 
against the context. 

Were it not that the Septuagint contains the expression σῶμα κατηρτίσω 
μοι, I should be inclined to believe that it is merely a parenthetic cireum- 
stance, thrown in by our author in order to explain the object of his quo- 
tation. In sacrifice and offering thou hast no delight, says the personage 
who is speaking. But what is to take their place ? is the natural inquiry. 
What shall be substituted for them? «Σῶμα κατηρτίσω μοι, is the answer, 
i. e. my body which I am to offer as a sacrifice, is to come in their place ; 
this will be a sacrifice acceptable, efficacious. In short, if the Septuagint 
did not contain the expression, we might conclude that the writer of the 
epistle added it, in order to convey the sentiment of the whole passage in 
some such manner as the following: “ In sacrifice and oblation I have no 
pleasure ;” my body hast thou adapted, viz. for oblation, i. 6. as if the writer 
had said: “'The speaker means, that his own body is to take the place of 
sacrifice and oblation.” 

But as the Septuagint text now is, we are compelled to believe that the 
apostle has quoted it and applied it to his purpose. Has he then made any 
substantial part of his argument to depend on the clause in question? An 
important inquiry, which may go some way towards removing the diffi- 
culties that the clause presents. 

In vs. 8, 9, the writer presents the argument deduced from his quota- 
tion, in the following manner. “ First he says: Sacrifice and offering and 
holocausts and sin offermgs thou hast no delight in, neither dost de- 
sire, (which are offered agreeably to the requirements of the law); next 
he says: Lo! [ come to do thy will. He abolishes the first, then, in order 
to establish the second.” ‘That is, he sets aside the efficacy of ritual sa- 
crifices and offerings, and establishes the efficacy of a Saviour’s obedience 
unto death ; comp. Phil. 2: 8. 

Now in this conclusion, there is nothing dependent on the clause σῶμα 
κατηρτίσω μοι. ‘The antithesis of legal offerings is, doing the will of God, 
v. 9, viz. the obedience of the Saviour in offering up his body, v.20. This 
Jast verse describes, indeed, the manner in which the obedience in ques- 
tion was rendered. But the argument, as expressed in the &th and 9th 
verses, is not made to depend on the manner of the obedience ; for the ob- 
ject of the writer here, is to shew the nullity of the Levitical sacrifices for 
spiritual purposes, and the fact that the Old Testament discloses this and 
intimates their abolition. 

I must regard, then, the use of σῶμα κατηρτίσω μοι by the apostle, as 
rather an incidental circumstance than as an essential one. He found it 
in the text of the Septuagint which he used. It was well adapted for the 
particular purpose he had in view ; for it turned the mind of the reader 


Excursus XX. ure. 10: 5. 591 


to Christ as the true expiatory victim, rather than to the sacrifices prescrib- 
ed by law. It was altogether accordant with the general tenor of the 
passage which he was citing, and the conclusion which he was to adduce 
from it. But he does not make (as we have scen) the force of his argu- 
ment to depend upon it. Were this the fact, and were we to suppose, 
{and we have no critical evidence for believing the contrary), that the He- 
brew text stood in his day as it now stands ; it would be a case in point 
to prove the extent to which the sacred writers have deemed it proper to 
employ the argumentum ad hominem, and adapt their reasonings to the 
modes of explaining the Scriptures practised by their readers. As it now 
is, I do not feel that much dependance can be placed on it, to establish a 
proposition of this nature ; for on the whole, I must view the employment 
of the phrase, thus found in the Septuagint, as rather incidental than es- 
sential to the writer’s purpose. Still, thus much is clearly decided by the 
case before us, viz. that the apostles did not feel under obligation in all 
respects to adhere to a literal use of the sacred text, but quoted ad sensum 
rather than ad literam. Even σῶμα κατηρτέσω μοι may be brought within 
the general limits of an ad senswm quotation, as Storr has remarked ; for 
preparing a body in this case, is preparing it for an offering, i. e. to be de- 
voted to the service of God. Now this is a species of obedience of the 
highest nature. If a body were given to the Saviour which he voluntari- 
ly devoted to death, Phil. 2: 8, then were his ears indeed opened, or he was 
truly obedient. 'The implication of the phrase σῶμα κατηρτίσω μοι, in the 
connection where it stands, is, that this body was to be a victim instead of 
the legal sacrifices ; of course, a devotedness of the highest nature is implied. 
ld sensum then, in a general point of view, the text may be regarded as 
cited ; and this, oftentimes, is all at which the New Testament writers aim. 

One more difficulty however remains. It is alleged, that Ps. xu. can- 
not well be applied to the Messiah. It rather belongs to David himself. 
How then could the writer of our epistle appeal to it, for a proof that the 
obedience unto death of the Messiah, was to accomplish what the Jewish 
sacrifices could not accomplish, viz. a removal of the penalty due to sin? 

That there are difficulties in the way of interpreting this Psalm as ori- 
ginally having had direct respect to the Messiah, every intelligent and can- 
did reader must allow. For it may be asked, (1) What was the deliver- 
ance from impending destruction, which Ps. 40: 2—8 [1, 2] describes ὃ 
On what occasion was the song of gratitude for deliverance uttered ? vs, 
4—6 [8—5]. (2) How could the iniquities of him “who knew no sin,” 
take hold of him? v.13 [19]. (8) How could the Messiah anticipate such 
troubles, as are alluded to in vs. 12—14 [11—13]; and particularly, How 
ean he, who when suspended on the cross prayed that his enemies might 
be forgiven, be supposed to have uttered such imprecations as are con- 
tained in vs. 15, 16 [14, 15] ? 

To avoid the difficulties to which these questions advert, some have 
supposed that the first and last parts.of the Psalm in question relate to 
David, while vs. 7—9 [6—8] contain a prediction respecting the Messiah ; 
at least, that they are spoken concerning him. But it is not easy to con- 
ceive how more than one person can be spoken of throughout the Psalm, 
it being all of the same tenor, and throughout appearing to be made up of 

\ 


592 Excursus XX. ues. 10: 5. 


words spoken by a suffering person, who had indeed been delivered from 
some evils, but was still exposed to many more. 

Others have maintained that the whole Psalm relates only to David ; 
and consequently, that the writer of our epistle accommodates his argu- 
ment to the Jewish allegorical explanation of it, probably current at the 
time when he wrote. Among these are some, whose general views of 
theology are far from coinciding with those of the neological class of 
critics. But there is a difficulty in regard to this, which must be felt by 
every reflecting and sober-minded man. How could the apostle employ 
as sound and Scriptural argument adapted to ‘prove the insufficiency of 
the Jewish sacrifices, an interpretation of Scripture not only allegorical 
but without any solid foundation? And how could he appeal to it as 
exhibiting the words of the Saviour himself, when David was the only 
person whom it concerned? If the Old Testament has no other relation 
to the Messiah, than such as is built upon interpretations that are the off- 
spring of fancy and ingenious allegory ; then how can we shew that the 
proof of a Messiah deduced from it, is any thing more than fanciful or al- 
legorical? And was it consistent with sound integrity, with sincere and 
upright regard to truth, to press the Hebrews with an arguraent which 
the writer himself knew to have no solid basis? Or if he did not know 
this, then in what light are we to regard him, as an interpreter of Scrip- 
ture and a teacher of Christian principles ἢ 

Considerations such as these questions suggest, render it difficult to ad- 
mit the opinion under examination, without abandoning some of the fun- 
damental principles on which our confidence in the real verity of the word 
of God rests. 

Nor does that scheme of interpretation which admits a double sense of 
Scripture, relieve our difficulties. This scheme explains so much of the 
Psalm as will most conveniently apply to David, as having a literal 
application to him; and so much of it as will conveniently apply to the 
Messiah, it refers to him. Truly a great saving of labour in investigation, 
and of perplexity and difficulty also, might apparently be made, if we 
could adopt such an expedient! But the consequences of admitting such 
a principle should be well weighed. What book on earth has a double 
sense, unless it is a book of designed enigmas! And even this has but one 
real meaning. 'The heathen oracles indeed could say: io te, Pyrrhe, Ro- 
manos posse vincere ; but can such an equivoque be admissible into the ora- 
cles of the living God ? And if a literal sense and an occult sense can, at one 
and the same time and by the same words, be conveyed, who that is un- 
inspired shall tell us what the occulé sense is? By what laws of inter- 
pretation is it to be judged? By none that belong to human language ; 
for other books than the Bible have not a double sense attached to them. 

For these and such like reasons, the scheme of attaching a double 
sense to the Scriptures is inadmissible. It sets afloat all the fundamental 
principles of interpretation by which we arrive at established conviction 
and certainty, and casts us upon the boundless ocean of imagination and 
conjecture without rudder or compass. 

If it be said that the author of our epistle was inspired, and therefore he 
was able correctly to give the occult sense of Ps. 40: 7—9 [6—8]; the 


Ixcursus XX. nen. 10:5. 5923. 


answer is obvious. The writer in deducing his argument from these 
verses, plainly appeals to an interpretation of them which his readers 
would recognize, and to which, he took it for granted, they would proba- 
bly consent. Otherwise the argument could have contained nothing in it 
of a convincing nature to them; as the whole of it must have rested, in 
their minds, upon the bare assertion and imagination of the writer. 

May not the whole quotation, then, be merely in the way of accommo- 
dating the language of the Old Testament, in order to express the writer’s 
own views? Such cases are indeed frequent in the New Testament. 
God says, by the prophet Hosea: “ When Israel was a child, then I loved 
him and ealled my Son out of Egypt, 11:1.” Now this is not prediction, 
but narration. But when Matthew describes the flight of Joseph and 
Mary and the infant Jesus, to Egypt, he says: ‘This took place, so that 
this passage of Scripture [in Hosea] had an accomplishment, te πληρώϑῃ 
x. τ. 4. Now here is evidently nothing more than a similarity of events ; 
so that what is said of Israel, God’s son in ancient times, might be affirm- 
ed of his Son Jesus in later times, in a still higher sense and in a similar 
manner. May not the writer of our epistle have accommodated the lan- 
guage of Ps. xz. in a similar way? May he not have merely expressed 
his own views in language borrowed from the Old Testament, without 
intending to aver that (as it stands in the original Scriptures) it has the 
same meaning which he now gives to it? 

This would indeed relieve in a great measure the difficulties under 
which the passage labours, if it could be admitted. But the nature of the 
writer’s argument seems to forbid the admission of it. He had asserted, 
(which was entirely opposed to the feelings and belief of most Jewish 
readers), that “the blood of bulls and goats could not take away sin.” 
What was the proof of this? His own authority; or that of the Jew- 
ish Scriptures? Clearly he makes an appeal to the latter, and argues, 
that by plain implication they teach the inefficacy of Jewish sacrifices, and 
the future rejection of them. Consequently, we cannot admit here a 
mere expression of the writer’s own sentiments in language borrowed 
from the Old Testament. 

Another supposition, however, remains to be examined, in regard to 
the subject under consideration ; which is, that Ps. xu. relates throughout 
to the Messiah. This is certainly a possible case. I mean that there is 
no part of this Psalm, which may not be interpreted so as to render its 
relation to the Messiah possible, without doing violence to the laws of 
language and interpretation. ΤῸ advert to the objections suggested on 
page 381; it may be replied to the first, that the enemies of the Saviour 
very often plotted against his life and endeavoured to destroy it, and that 
he as often escaped out of their hands, until {he voluntarily gave up him- 
self to death. The thanksgivings in the first part of Ps. xu., may relate 
to some or all of these escapes. If it be replied, that the writer of our 
epistle represents the Psalm as spoken when the Messiah was εἰσερχόμενος 
εἰς τὸν κόσμον, coming [i.e. about to come] into the world, and therefore 
before his birth; the answer is, that the phrase by no means implies of 
necessity that the Messiah uttered the sentiments here ascribed to him 
before his incarnation, but during it. Εἰσερχόμενος, entering, being entered, 


594 Excursus XX. nes. 10: 3. 


or when he had entered into the world, he said : Θυσία x. 1.2. Entering in- 
to the world may mean being born; but it may also mean, and probably 
does here mean, ‘ entering upon the Messianic office, coming among men 
as the promised Messiah.’ That the Saviour prayed to God, gave thanks, 
made supplications and deprecations, as men do, need not be proved to 
any reader of the Evangelists. On what particular occasion in the Mes- 
siah’s life, the words in Ps. 40: 7—9 were uttered, it is needless to inquire. 
Indeed, that they were ever formally and ad literum uttered, it is quite 
needless to shew ; inasmuch as all which the Psalmist intends by the ex- 
pression of them is, that they should be descriptive of his true character ; 
which would be such that we might well suppose him to utter them, or 
that they would be appropriate to him. In a word, the Psalmist repre- 
sents the Messiah as uttering them, merely in order to exhibit the true 
nature of the Messiah’s character. 

The second objection appears, at first view, more formidable. How 
could the sinless Messiah be represented as suffering for his own iniquities 2 
Plainly, I answer, he could not be. The iniquities of others might be laid 
upon him; as the Scriptures plainly testify that they were, 1 Pet. 2: 24. 
Heb. 9: 28. Is. 53:4, 5,12; i.e. he might suffer on account of the sins 
of olhers, or in their stead; but as to sins of his own, be had none to an- 
swer for. The whole strength of the objection, however, lies in the ver- 
sion of the word 35» (Ps. 40: 13), which the objector translates my int- 
quities, sins, transgressions. But who that is well acquainted with the 
Hebrew idiom, does not know that 112 means punishment, calamity, mis- 
JSortune, as well as iniquity, ete. ? David, when he was chased away from 
Jerusalem by his rebel son, calls his Ἐπ his 72. Perhaps the Lord, 
says he, will look favourably "2522, on my calamity, 2 Sam. 16: 12; for his 
SIN it was not, in this case. ἘΞῸΣ Ps. 31: 11. 15. 5: 18. A Concord- 
ance will Se pply other cases, particularly cases where the meaning is pen- 
alty, punishment. Analogous to the case of 755, we have seen to be that 
of ΝΠ and σὺ v2; see on chap. 9: 28. Excurs. XIX. In Ps. 40: 18, 
then, "N23 may, agreeably to the usus loquendi, be translated, calamities, 
distresses ; and that these came upon the Messiah (7213725) will not be 
doubted. 

So in 2 Cor. 5: 21, ἁμαρτίαν ἐποίησε, i.e. God made Christ a sin-offering 
or subjected him to calamity ; and in Heb. 9: 26, ἀϑέτησιν ἁμαρτίας means 
a removing of the calamitous consequences of sin. 

The third objection may be very briefly answered. Nothing can be 
easier than to suppose the Messiah might, at any period of his public life, 
have anticipated severe trials and have deprecated them ; as we know full 
well how strongly he deprecated his final suffermgs when he was in the 
garden of Gethsemane. That he should formally and literally use the 
identical words of the 40th Psalm, was not necessary ; but that he should 
have been in a condition such as the language there describes, is all that 
is necessary to justify the application of the Psalm to him. 

In regard to the last objection, which has respect to the imprecations 
contained in the latter part of Ps. xz.; they may be, and probably are, 
viewed in a different light by different persons. Considered as simple 
maledictions, they would be unworthy of the Psalmist or of the Messiah. 


Excursus XX. 555. 10:5. 595 


But as denunciations against the impenitent and persevering enemies of 
God and of David, or of Christ, they present themselves to the mind in a 
very different light. David did frequently utter denunciations against his 
enemies. So did Christ against his; e. g. against the Scribes and Phari- 
sees, against Jerusalem, and against the Jewish nation. Yet who will say 
that this was for want of tenderness in him, or of benevolent feelings to- 
wards those who were his enemies? No one can say this, who considers 
the whole of his character as represented by the Evangelists. If then he 
might and did in fact utter denunciations against his enemies and perse- 
cutors, he might be represented as doing this by the Psalmist, without any 
error committed in so doing. 

The objections, then, do not appear to be of a conclusive nature, which 
are made to the application of the 40th Psalm to the Messiah. Still I 
freely acknowledge, that had not the New Testament referred to this 
Psalm as descriptive of the work of the Messiah, [ might perhaps have 
been satisfied, in general, with the application of it to’ David himself, or 
even to the people of Israel collectively considered. Yet a minute con- 
sideration of vs. 7, 8 [6, 7] certainly might serve to suggest some difficul- 
ty, in respect to such an application. Obedience is there represented as 
the substitute for sacrifices. So the writer of our epistle understood it. 
And it is said to be written in the sacred volume, that this would be the 
case respecting the individual whose obedience is there described. Is 
this any where written respecting the obedience of David? Is the obedi- 
ence of the Jewish nation any where represented as a substitute for sacri- 
fices? Rather, did not a part of their obedience consist in offering 
them ἢ 

After all, however, the whole passage might, perhaps, be construed as 
merely affirming that obedience is more acceptable to God than sacrifice ; 
and this is so declared in other Scriptures, comp. 1 Sam. 15: 22. Mi- 
cah 6:6. Ps. 50:9 seq. Is. 1: 11 seq. Matt. 9:13. 12:7. At least, this 
mode of interpretation must be admitted to be a possible one. 

Let us grant, then, what cannot fairly be denied, that the 40th Psalm, 
according to general laws of interpretation, might be applied to David. Is 
it not equally plain, that there is nothing in it which may not, without 
doing any violence to the laws of language, be applied to David’s Son, in 
a still higher and nobler sense ? After what has been suggested in respect 
to this application, I shall venture to consider the application itself as 
possible. 

Here then is presented a case of the following kind. A Psalm com- 
posed by an inspired writer, is (in itself considered, i. e. the words or dic- 
tion being simply regarded), capable of an application to David, or to the 
Son of David, the Messiah. To whom shall it be applied by us? If 
there be nothing but simply the Psalm itself to direct our interpretation, 
the answer must be: “ΤῸ David; for the natural application of the words 
of Scripture, (which in themselves are not necessarily predictions), is to 
the persons in being when they were written. But if we have a good 
reason for making the application of them in a prophetic sense to some 
future personage, then ought we to make such an application. Conse- 
quently the question in respect to the application of the 40th Psalm depends 


596 Excursus XX. ues. 10: 5. 


on the fact, whether we have sufficient reason to construe it as a predic- 
lion, i. e. as descriptive of a personage who was to appear at a future 
period, viz. of David’s Son. In itself it is capable of such an explanation. 
Paul has actually made such an application of it. The nature of the case 
shews, too, that the Hebrews of that time were accustomed so to explain 
it; for otherwise, the argument of the apostle would not have been admit- 
ted as of any force by his readers. Whence did the Hebrews derive such 
an interpretation 5 Or (which is of higher moment) how could the apos- 
tle appeal to Ps. 40: 7, 8, for proof of the efficacy of Christ’s obedience 
unto death, as well as of the inefficacy of ritual sacrifices? This appeal, 
then, under such circumstances as shew that the stress of his argument 
lies upon the meaning he gives to the passage of Scripture which he 
quotes, settles the question how the 40th Psalm is to be interpreted ; settles 
it, | mean, with all those who admit the authority of the writer of our 
epistle, either as a teacher of Christian doctrine or an expositor of the 
word of God. At all events, it cannot be shewn that the 40th Psalm has 
no original relation to the Messiah, To shew that it is capable of another 
interpretation, is effecting nothing. 'The second Psalm, and all other 
Psalms relating to Christ, borrow their imagery—their costume, from the 
times when they were written, and the persons, manners, and customs 
then existing ; and of course, in a greater or less degree, they appear at 
first view to relate only to them. In describing the future King of the 
Jews, the writers of ancient times would naturally borrow their imagery 
from the kings of that day. But to affirm that because they did this, they 
had reference and could have reference only to the kings of their times, 
would be a position as little consistent with the principles of language and 
interpretation, as it is with the numerous declarations of the writers of the 
New Testament. 

It will be easily perceived, that in admitting the possibility of applying 
the 40th Psalm to David, I have admitted that vs. 7 and 8 may be inter- 
preted as expressing merely the general principle that obedience is better 
than sacrifices. But if we suppose, with the writer of our epistle, that 
David, when he composed this Psalm, meant to intimate that this obedi- 
ence was to be “obedience unto death, even the death of the cross,” then 
must it follow, of course, that the Psalm is altogether inapplicable to Da- 
vid; for neither his obedience, nor death, nor that of any other person 
(the Messiah excepted), could supersede the ritual of the Mosaic law and 
prepare the way for its abolition. Supposing then the apostle to have 
rightly interpreted the words of Ps. xu., (and who shall correct his exege- 
sis ?) the impropriety of applying the Psalm to David is plain; and the 
propriety of referring it to the Messiah needs no farther vindication. 


0) 


ὧι 


11 
12 


THE 


EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


Dignity of Christ. His superiority over the angels. 


Gop, who in ancient times spake often and in various ways to 
the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken to 
us by [his] Son; whom he hath appointed Lord of all things, 
by whom also he made the world ; who, (being the radiance of 
his glory and the exact image of his substance, and controlling 
all things by his own powerful word), after he had by himself 
made expiation for our sins, sat down at the right hand of the 
Majesty on high; being exalted as much above the angels as 
he hath obtained a name more excellent than they. For to 
which of the angels said he at any time: “ Thou art my Son, 
this day have I begotten thee?” And again: “I will be his 
Father, and he shall be my Son Ὁ 

Moreover, when on another occasion he introduceth his first- 
begotten into the world, he saith: ‘“ Let all the angels of God 
worship him.” Concerning the angels also it is said: “* Who 
maketh his angels winds, and his ministering servants a flame of 
fire.” But of the Son: “Thy throne, Ὁ God, is eternal; a 
sceptre of justice is the sceptre of thy kingdom. Thou hast 
loved righteousness, and hated iniquity ; therefore, O God, thy 
God hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fel- 
lows.” Also: “Thou, Lord, in the beginning didst lay the 
foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of thy 
hands ; 1 they shall perish, but thou shalt endure; even they all 


shall wax old like a garment, | and as a vesture shalt thou fold 
76 


598 


13 


14 


Il. 


Or 


6 


é | 


10 


HEBREWS I. 13—II. 10. 


them up, and they shall decay ; but thou art the same, and thy 
years shall never cease.” But unto which of the angels hath 
he ever said: ‘‘ Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine 
enemies thy footstool?’ Are they not all ministering spirits, 
sent forth for the aid of those who are to obtain salvation ? 


Exhortation diligently to seek the salvation proffered by the Lord of glory. 


It behoveth us, therefore, the more abundantly to give heed 
to the things which we have heard, lest at any time we should 
slight them. For if the law communicated by angels was es- 
tablished, and every transgression and disobedience received a 
just reward ; how shall we escape, if we neglect so great salva- 
tion? which, being first declared by the Lord, was afterwards 
confirmed unto us by those who heard [him]; God also bearing 
witness with them, by signs and wonders and diverse mi- 
raculous powers, and communications of the Holy Spirit accord- 
ing to his will. 


Further declaration of Christ's superiority over the angels. Objections against this, 
drawn from his human nature, removed by showing the elevation of that nature and the im- 
portant objects accomplished by assuming it. 


Unto the angels, however, hath he not put in subjection 
the world that was to come, of which we are now speaking. 
But one in a certain place hath testified, saying: “ What is 
man, that thou art mindful of him; or the son of man, that thou 
dost regard him? Yet thou hast made him but little lower 
than the angels; thou hast crowned him with glory and honour, 
and hast set him over the works of thy hands. All things hast 
thou put under his feet.” By putting all things in subjection to 
him, then, he left nothing which is not subject to him. But 
now we do not yet see all things subjected to him ; we see him, 
however, who was made a little lower than the angels, Jesus, 
crowned with glory and honour on account of the suffering of 
death, when by the grace of God he had tasted death for all. 
For it became him, for whom are all things and by whom are 
all things, through sufferings to bestow the highest honour upon 


HEBREWS II. 11—IHII. 8. 599 


11 


13 


14 


15 


16 
17 


18 


11. 


wm CO 


7 
8 


the Captain of their salvation, who is leading many sons to 
glory. 

Moreover, both he who maketh expiation, and they for whom 
expiation is made, are of one; for which cause he is not asham- 
ed to call them brethren, | saying: “ I will declare thy name to 
my brethren ; in the midst of the congregation will I praise 
thee.” And again: “1 will put my trust in him.” And 
again: ‘‘ Behold, I and the children which God hath given me!” 
Since then the children are partakers of flesh and blood, him- 
self also in like manner partook of them, in order that by his 
death he might subdue him who had a deadly power, that is, 
the devil, | and free those, who through fear of condemnation 
had during their whole lives been exposed to bondage. 

Besides, he surely doth not succour the angels, but he help- 
eth the seed of Abraham. Hence it was necessary that in all 
respects he should be like to his brethren, so that he might be 
a merciful and faithful high priest as to things which pertain 
unto God, in order to make atonement for the sins of the 
people. For inasmuch as he himself suffered, being tempted, 
he is able to succour those who are tempted. 


Comparison of Christ with Moses. Warning not to disregard the admonitions of the gos- 
SPR aa Liaw | pelicyert in ancient times is still proffered. The threatenings 
W uererore, holy brethren, who have received the hea- 
venly invitation, attentively consider Jesus, the apostle and high 
priest whom we have acknowledged ; who was faithful to him 
that appointed him, even as Moses [was], in all his house. 
For he is worthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as the 
builder is entitled to more honour than the house. For every 
house is built by some one, but he who built all is God. Now 
Moses was faithful in all his house as a servant, for the sake of 
testifying those things which were to be spoken; but Christ, as 
a Son over his house; whose house we are, provided we hold 
fast unto the end our confidence and joyful hope. 
Wherefore, as the Holy Spirit saith: “To day, if ye will 
hear his voice, | harden not your hearts as in the provocation, in 


600 


10 
11 
12 


19 


14 


19 


IV. 


Οι 


HEBREWS III. 9—IV. 6. 


the day of temptation in the wilderness, | when your fathers 


tempted me; they tried me, although they saw my works forty 
years. Wherefore I was offended with that generation, and 
said: They do always err in their hearts, and they have not ap- 
proved my ways. So I sware in my wrath: They shall not 
enter into my rest.” 

Beware, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart 
of unbelief, so that he may depart from the living God. But 
admonish one another continually, while it is called to-day, so 
that no one of you may become hardened through the delusion 
of sin. For we shall be made partakers of the blessings which 
Christ bestows, if we hold fast even to the end our first confi- 
dence. 

While it is said: “To day, if ye will hear his voice,” harden 
not your hearts as in the provocation. Who now were they 
that when they heard did provoke? Were they not all in- 
deed, who came out of Egypt under Moses? And with whom 
was he angry forty years? Was it not with those who sinned, 
whose corpses fell in the wilderness? ‘To whom did he swear 
that they should not enter into his rest, except to those who did 
not believe? And so we see, that they could not enter in be- 
ceuse of unbelief. 

Let us beware, therefore, since a promise is still left of enter- 
ing into his rest, lest any one of you should fail of obtaining it. 
For to us also the offer of blessings is made, as well as to 
them; the word however which they heard, did not profit 
them, not being joined with faith in those who heard it. For 
we who believe, do enter into the rest; as he says: “Sol 
sware in my wrath, [unbelievers] shall not enter into my rest,” 
to wit, [rest from] the works which were performed when the 
world was founded. For in a certain place [the Scripture] 
speaketh thus concerning the seventh day: ‘ And God rested 
on the seventh day from all his works.” And again in this 
manner: ‘ They shall not enter into my rest.” Since then it 
remaineth that some must enter into that [rest], and they to 
whom the offer of blessings was formerly made did not enter in 


12 


19 


14 


15 


16 


HEBREWS IV. 7—V. 2. 601 


because of unbelief, [it followeth that a rest remaineth for those 
who believe.*] 

Again, when speaking by David so long a time afterwards, 
he designateth a certain day, To-pay ; as it is said: “ To-pay, 
if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts.” Now if 
Joshua had given them rest, he would not after this have spok- 
en of another day. There remaineth, therefore, a rest for the 
people of God. For he who entereth into his rest, will also 
cease from his own works, as God [did] from his. 

Let us earnestly endeavour, then, to enter into that rest, lest 
any one should perish in the same manner through unbelief. For 
the threatening of God hath an active and mighty energy, yea, 
it is sharper than any two edged sword, piercing even to the di- 
viding asunder of life and spirit, and of the joints and marrow ; 
he [God] even judgeth the thoughts and purposes of the heart, 

| nor is there any thing concealed from him, but all is naked and 
exposed to the view of him unto whom: our account must be 
rendered. 


Comparison of Christ with the Jewish high priest introduced. Reproof for ignorance re- 
see ΠΕ re higher doctrines of the Christian religion, followed by encouragement and ex- 

Moreover, since we have a high priest who hath passed 
through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast to 
our profession. For we have not a high priest, who cannot be 
compassionate toward our weakness ; but one who was tempt- 
ed in all respects as we are, [yet] without sm. Let us, there- 
fore, approach the throne of grace with confidence, that we may 
obtain mercy and find favour as to help in time of need. 

Now every high priest, taken from among men, is appointed 
in behalf of men on account of things which pertain to God, that 
he may present both oblations and sacrifices for sin; being able 
to deal gently with the ignorant and the erring, inasmuch as he 


* Supplied from v. 9. 


602 HEBREWS V. 3—VI. 6. 


3 himself is compassed with infirmity. On account of this, also, 
he must present sin-offerings, as well for himself as for the peo- 

4 ple. Moreover, no one assumeth to himself this honour, but he 
is called [thereto] of God, even as Aaron was. 

5 Even so, Christ did not claim for himself the honour of being 
high priest; but he who said: “'Thou art my Son, this day 
have I begotten thee,” [bestowed this honour upon him] ; as al- 

6 so he saith, in another place : “ Thou art a priest forever, after 
the order of Melchizedek.” 

7 The same, in the days of his flesh, (having offered up prayers 
and supplications, with strong cries and with tears, unto him who 
was able to save him from death, and being delivered from that 

8 which he feared), | although a Son, learned obedience by those 

9 things which he suffered; and being exalted to glory, he be- 

10. came the author of eternal salvation to all who obey him, | being 
called of God a high priest after the order of Melchizedek. 

11 Concerning him we have much to say, which it will be difficult 

12 to explain, since ye are dull of apprehension. For even when, 
on account of [so long] a time, ye ought to be able to teach, ye 
have need that one should again teach you the first elements of 

13 the oracles of God, and need milk rather than solid food. For 
every one who uses milk, is unskilled in the doctrine of right- 

14 eousness ; he is yet a child. But solid food is for those of ma- 
ture age, who, by reason of practice, have faculties exercised 
for the distinguishing of both good and evil. 

VI. Wherefore, leaving the first principles of Christian doctrine, 
let us advance toward a mature state [of religious knowledge] ; 
not laying again the foundation of repentance from works which 

2 cause death and of faith toward God, of the doctrine of baptisms 
and of the laying on of hands, of the resurrection also of the 

3 dead and of eternal judgment. And this will we do, if God 

4 permit. For it is impossible that they who have been once en- 
lightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and been made 

5 partakers of the holy Spirit, 1 and have tasted the good word 

of God, and the influences of the world to come, | and have fal- 

len away, should be again renewed to repentance; since they 


jor) 


10 


11 


12 


19 


14 


15 


16 


11 


18 


19 
20 


HEBREWS VI. 7.—VII. 1. 603 


have crucified for themselves the Son of God, and openly ex- 
posed him to shame. 

For the earth, which drinketh in the rain that frequently com- 
eth upon it, and bringeth forth fruits useful to those for whose 
sake it is tilled, receiveth blessings from God. But that which 
bringeth forth thorns and briars, is reprobate and near to a curse, 
[and] its end will be burning. But, beloved, we confidently 
hope for better things respecting you, even those connected with 
salvation, although we thus speak. For God is not unkind, so 
as to forget your labour, and the love which ye have shown to- 
ward his name, in having performed kind offices toward the 
saints and in still performing them. 

Moreover, we are desirous that every one of you should mani- 
fest the same diligence respecting a full assurance of hope, even to 
the end; so that ye may not be slothful, but imitators of those, 
who through faith and patient expectation have entered into the 
possession of promised blessings. For when God made a promise 
to Abraham, seeing he could swear by no greater, he sware by 
himself, saying: “1 will greatly bless thee, and exceedingly mul- 
tiply thee.” And so, having patiently waited, he obtained the 
promised blessing. Now men swear by one who is greater, and 
the oath for confirmation [maketh] an end of all dispute among 
them. Wherefore God, desirous of shewing more abundantly 
to the heirs of promise the immutability of his purpose, inter- 
posed by an oath ; so that by two immutable things, concerning 
which it is impossible for God to lie, we, who have sought a re- 
fuge, might have strong persuasion to hold fast the hope that is 
set before us, 1 which we cleave to as an anchor of the soul sure 
and firmly fixed, and which entereth within the vail, | whither 
Jesus our forerunner hath gone, being made high priest forever 
after the order of Melchizedek. 


Comparison of Christ, asa priest, with Melchizedek. New order of things required by 
the appointment of such a priest; which appointment was made with the solemnity of an 


oath, and the office created by it was perpetual, allowing of no succession like that of the 
Jewish priests. 


VII. Now this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the most 


high God, (who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of 


604 HEBREWS VII. 2—19. 


2 the kings and blessed him ; to whom also Abraham gave a tenth 


> 


[99] 


10 


11 


12 


13 


14 


15 
16 


17 
18 


19 


part of all; [whose name] by interpretation first meaneth King 
of Righteousness, and then also King of Salem, that is King of 
Peace ;_ without father, without mother, without genealogy ; 
who hath neither beginning of days nor end of life, but is like to 
the Son of God) ; remaineth a high priest perpetually. 

Consider now how great he must be, to whom Abraham the 
patriarch gave a tenth part of the spoils. The sons of Levi, 
indeed, who take the office of priests, have a command by the 
law to tithe the people, that is, their brethren, although descend- 
ed from the loms of Abraham; but he, whose descent is not 
counted from them, tithed Abraham, and blessed him to whom 
the promises were made. And beyond all controversy, the less 
was blessed by the greater. 

Here also men receive tithes who die; but there, one of 
whom it is testified that he liveth. Besides, (if I may so speak), 
even Levi himself, who received tithes, was tithed in Abraham ; 
for he was then in the loins of his ancestor, when Melchizedek 
met him. 

If, moreover, perfection had been by the Levitical priesthood, 
(for the law was given to the people in connection with this), 
what further need was there that another priest should arise after 
the order of Melchizedek, and not be called after the order of 
Aaron? If, however, the priesthood be changed, there must 
needs be also a change of the law. [And the priesthood is 
changed], for he concerning whom these things are said, be- 
longed to a different tribe, none of whom served at the altar ; 
since it is manifest that our Lord sprang from Judah, in respect 
to which tribe Moses said nothing concerning the priesthood. 
And still more manifest is it [that the priesthood is changed], if 
another priest hath arisen, like to Melchizedek, who hath not 
been made so by a law that was temporary, but by an authority 
of endless duration. For [the Scripture] declareth: ‘“'Thou art 
a priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek.” For there is, 
indeed, a setting aside of the preceding law, because it was weak 
and unavailing, | (for the law did not fully accomplish any thing) ; 
but a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God. 


20 
21 


22 
23 


24 
25 


26 


27 


28 


HEBREWS VII. 20—VIII. 5. 605 


Inasmuch also as not without an oath [Jesus was made a 
priest], | (for they are made priests without an oath, but he with 
an oath, by him who said to him: ‘“'The Lord hath sworn and 
will not repent, Thou art a priest forever, after the order of 
Melchizedek),” 1 by so much hath Jesus become the surety of 
a better covenant. 

Those priests likewise are many, because they are not suf- 
fered to continue by reason of death; but he, because he con- 
tinueth forever, hath a priesthood without any succession; and— 
he is able always to save those who come to God by hin, since 
he ever liveth to interpose in their behalf. 


The subject of Christ’s qualifications for the office ofa priest (proposed in 5: 23 and briefly 
discussed in 5: 7—9) resumed. His superiority over the Jewish priests in respect to these 
qualifications. 


Now such a high priest was needful for us, who is holy, harm- 
less, undefiled, separate from sinners, and exalted above the 
heavens; who hath not any daily necessity (like the high priests) 
to offer sacrifices, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the 
people ; for this he did, once for all, when he offered up himself. 
For the law maketh men high priests who have infirmity ; but 
the word of the oath, which was since the law, [maketh] the 
Son [high priest] who is exalted to glory for ever more. 


Expiatory office of Christ as a priest. His functions, the dispensation under which they 
are performed, the place of exercising them, with the manner and effects of them, compared 
with those of the Jewish priests. 


VII. The principal thing, however, arnong those of which we are 


2 


σι 


speaking, is, that we have such a high priest, who is seated on 
the right hand of the throne of Majesty in the heavens, | a min- 
ister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle which the Lord 
hath reared and not man. For every high priest is appointed, 
in order that he may present both oblations and sacrifices ; 
whence it becometh necessary, that this one also should have 
something which he may present. For if he were on earth, 
then he could not be a priest, seeing there are priests who pre- 
sent oblations according to the law; (the same who perform 
77 


666 


HEBREWS VIII. 6—IX. 5. 


+) 


10 


11 


12 


19 


ΙΧ. 


2 


4 


9 


service in [that sanctuary which is but] a mere copy of the 
heavenly one; for Moses, when about to build the tabernacle, 
was divinely admonished: ‘See now,” said he, “that thou 
make all things according to the pattern shewed thee in the 
mount).” But now, he hath obtained a service which is more 
excellent ; as much more as the covenant is better of which he 
is mediator, and which is sanctioned by better promises. 

Moreover, if that first [covenant] had been faultless, then 
would no place have been sought for the second. But finding 
fault [with the first], he saith to them: “ Behold the days are 
coming, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with 
the house of Israel and with the house of Judah; not according 
to the covenant which I made with their fathers, in the day 
when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of 
Egypt; for they did not continue in my covenant, and I rejected 
them, saith the Lord. But this is the covenant which I will 
make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord ; 
I will put my laws into their mind, and engrave them upon their 
hearts, and 1 will be their God and they shall be my people. 
None shall teach his fellow-citizen, and none his brother, saying : 
Know the Lord; for all shall know me, from the least even to 
the greatest. For I will be merciful to their iniquities, and their 
sins and their transgressions will | remember no more.” 

By saying “a new [covenant],” he representeth the first as 
old; now that which hath become old, and is advancing in age, 
is nigh to dissolution. 

Moreover, the first [covenant] had both ordinances of service 
and a sanctuary of an earthly nature. For an outer tabernacle 
was prepared, in which was the candlestick, and the table, and 
the shew-bread, which is called the holy place. And behind 
the second vail was the tabernacle, which is called the holy of 
holies, 1 containing the golden censer, and the ark of the cove- 
nant overlaid with gold on every part; in which [ark] was the 
golden urn that contained the manna, and the rod of Aaron 
which budded, and the tables of the covenant; and over it were 
the Cherubim of glory, overshadowing the mercy-seat: of which 
things I design not, at present, particularly to speak. 


7 


10 


11 


12 


19 


14 


15 


16 
17 


18 
19 


20 
21 


HEBREWS IX. 6—21. 607 


6 Now these being thus prepared, the priests performing the 


services entered continually into the outer tabernacle. But into 
the inner one the high priest only [entered], once in each year, 
not without blood, which he presented for himself and for the sins 
of the people ; the Holy Spirit signifying this, that the way to the 
most holy place was not yet open, while the first tabernacle had 
a standing; which hath been a type down to the present time, 
in which both oblations and sacrifices are offered, that cannot 
fully accomplish what is needed for the conscience of him who 
performeth the services; being imposed (together with meats 
and drinks and divers washings—ordinances pertaining to the 
flesh) only until the time of reformation. But Christ being 
come, the high priest of future good things, through a greater 
and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is, not 
of this [material] creation, | he entered once for all into the holy 
place, not with the blood of goats and of bullocks, but with his 
own blood, procuring eternal redemption. For if the blood of 
bulls and goats, and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling the unclean, 
cleanseth as to the purification of the flesh, | how much more 
shall the blood of Christ, who by an eternal Spirit offered him- 
self without spot to God, purify our conscience from works which 
cause death, so that we may serve the living God! On this 
account, also, he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that, [his] 
death having taken place for redemption from the sins [commit- 
ted] under the former covenant, they who have been called 
might receive the promised blessing of the eternal inheritance. 
Moreover, where there is a testament, it is necessary that the 
death of the testator should take place; because a testament is 
valid in respect to those only who are dead, since it hath no force 
while the testator is living. Hence not even the first [covenant] 
was ratified without blood. "or when, according to the law, all 
the commandment had been read by Moses to all the people, 
taking the blood of bullocks and of goats, with water and scarlet 
wool and hyssop, he sprinkled both the book itself and all the 
people, 1 saying: ‘“ This is the blood of the covenant which God 
hath enjoined upon you.” The tabernacle, also, and likewise 
all the vessels for service, did he sprinkle in the same manner 


HEBREWS IX. 22—X. 8. 


28 


rw) 


-_ 
~~ 


with blood. Indeed, almost every thing is required by the law 
to be purified by blood ; and without the shedding of blood there 
is no forgiveness. 

Since then the copies of heavenly things must needs be puri- 
fied in this manner, the heavenly things themselves [must be 
purified] by better sacrifices than these. For Christ did not 
enter into a sanctuary made with hands, which is only a copy of 
the true one, but into heaven itself, that he might thenceforth 
appear before God for us. Yet not that he might frequently 
make an offering of himself, like the high priest who entereth 
into the sanctuary every year with blood not his own; for other- 
wise he must needs have often suffered, since the foundation of 
the world; but now, at the close of the [ancient] dispensation, 
he hath once for all made his appearance, in order that he might 
remove the punishment due to sin by the sacrifice of himself. 
For since it is appointed unto men to die but once, and after this 
[cometh] the judgment; so Christ, after having once for all 
made an offermg of himself to bear the sins of many, will appear 
without a sin-offering, at his second [coming], for the salvation 
of those who wait for him. 

Now the law, which was but an imperfect sketch of good 
things that were to come, and not the complete image of 
those things, can never, by the yearly sacrifices themselves 
which are continually offered, fully accomplish what is needed 
for those who approach [the altar]. For if it could, then would 
not these offerings have ceased? because the worshippers, once 
for all made clean, would no longer have been conscious of sins. 
On the contrary, by these [sacrifices] yearly remembrance is 
made of sin. For it is impossible that the blood of bulls and 
goats should take away sin. 

Wherefore [Christ] when entering into the world saith : 
“Sacrifice and oblation thou hast not desired, but a body hast 


ἡ thou prepared for me ; in whole burnt offerings and [offerings] 


for sin thou hast no pleasure. Then said I, Lo! I come, O 
God, to do thy will; (in the volume of the book it is written 
concerning me).” First saying: “ Sacrifice and oblation and 
whole burnt offerings and [offerings] for sin thou desirest not, 


17 
18 


26 


nor hast pleasure in them,” (which are presented according to 


HEBREWS X. 9—26. 609 


the law) ; he then saith: “Lo! I come to do thy will ;” [thus] 
he abolisheth the first, that he may establish the second. By 
this will expiation is made for us, through the offering of the 
body of Jesus Christ once for all. 

Now every priest standeth, performing daily service, and 
oftentimes presenting the same sacrifices which can never take 
away sin; but he, having offered up one sacrifice for sin, sat 
down forever at the right hand of God, | thenceforth waiting un- 
til his enemies be made his footstool; for by one offering he 
hath forever perfected those for whom expiation is made. 

Moreover the Holy Spirit himself testifieth to us; for after 
he had said: ‘“‘'This is the covenant which I will make with 
them after those days ;” the Lord saith: “I will put my laws 
upon their hearts, and engrave them upon their minds;” and 
“ their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.” But 
where there is remission of these, there is no more offering for 
sin. 


Exhortation to perseverance from a consideration of the faithfulness of God, of the severe 
doom of apostates, and of the sufferings which the Hebrew Christians had already endured 
for the sake of religion. 


Havine then, brethren, free entrance into the sanctuary by 
the blood of Jesus, a new and living way | which he hath con- 
secrated, through the vail, (that is, his flesh); [having] also a 
high priest over the house of God ; let us approach with a true 
heart in full confidence, being purified as to our hearts from a 
consciousness of evil, | and cleansed as to our bodies with pure 
water; let us hold fast without wavering the hope which we 
profess, for faithful is he who hath promised ; and let us atten- 
tively consider one another, in order to excite unto love and 
good works; not forsaking the assembling of ourselves to- 
gether (as the custom of some is), but admonishing [one anoth- 
er]; and this so much the more, as ye see the day approaching. 
For should we voluntarily sin, after having received the knowl- 


610 . HEBREWS X. 27—XI. 3. 


27 edge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sin, | but 
a certain fearful expectation of punishment, yea, of fiery indigna- 
28 tion which will consume the adversaries. Whosoever dishon- 
oured the Jaw of Moses, suffered death without mercy, when 
29 there were two or three witnesses ; of how much sorer punish- 
ment, think ye, shall he be counted worthy, who hath trodden 
under foot the Son of God, and regarded the blood of the coven- 
ant by which expiation has been made, as unclean, and done 
30 despite to the Spirit of grace! For we know him who hath 
said: ““ Vengeance is mine, 1 will render it,” saith the Lord ; 
31 and again: ‘‘’The Lord will avenge his people.” It is a fear- 
ful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. 
32 Call to mind, now, the former days, in which, after ye were 
33 enlightened, ye endured a great contest with sufferings ; partly 
because ye were made a public spectacle both by reproaches 
and afflictions, and partly because ye were made partakers with 
34 those who were in like circumstances. For ye did truly sym- 
pathize with my bonds, and cheerfully suffer the plundering of 
your own substance; knowing that ye have for yourselves a 
35 better and more enduring possession in heaven. Cast not away 
36 then your confidence, which will obtam a great reward. For 
ye have need of patient waiting, in order that when ye have 
done the will of God ye may receive the promised blessing. 
37 Yet, ma very little while, ‘ he who is coming will come, and 
38 will not delay.” ‘The just,” moreover, “ shall live by faith ;” 
also: “ If any man draw back, my soul hath no pleasure in him.” 
39 We, however, are not of those who draw back unto destruction ; 
but of those who believe unto the salvation of the soul. 


Description of faith, and of the effects of it in respect to the saints of ancient times. 


ΧΙ Now faith is confidence in respect to things hoped for— 
2 evidence of things not seen. For by this, the ancients obtained 
commendation. 


3 By faith we perceive, that the world was formed by the 
word of God, so that the things which are seen, were not made 
from those which appear. 


4 


ὧι 


10 
11 


12 


13 


16 


17 


HEBREWS XI. 4—17. 611 


By faith Abel offered to God a better sacrifice than Cain, 
on account of which he was commended as righteous, God him- 
self bestowing commendation upon his offermgs ; and by the 
same, though dead, he still speaketh. 

By faith Enoch was translated, that he should not see death, 
and “he was not found, because God had translated him.” For 
before his translation he is commended, as having pleased God ; 
but without faith it is impossible to please him; for he who 
cometh unto God, must believe that he is, and that he is the 
rewarder of those who seek him. 

By faith Noah, being divinely admonished respecting things 
not yet apparent, with reverence prepared an ark for the safety 
of his household, by which he condemned the world, and ob- 
tained the justification which is by faith. 

By faith Abraham obeyed, when called to go forth unto the 
place which he was to receive for a possession; yea, he went 
forth not knowing whither he was going. By faith he sojourn- 
ed in the Jand of promise, while it belonged to strangers, dwell- 
ing in tents, together with Isaac and Jacob who were heirs of 
the same promise ; for he expected a city which hath founda- 
tions, whose builder and maker is God. By faith, also, Sarah 
herself received the power of conception, and this beyond the 
usual time of life, inasmuch as she counted him to be faithful 
who had promised. Wherefore there sprang, even from one 
who was dead as to such things, [a seed] like the stars of heaven 
for multitude, and like the sand on the shore of the sea which 
cannot be numbered. 

These all died in faith, not having received the promised 
blessings ; but seeing them afar off, and hailing them with joy, 
they professed themselves to be strangers and sojourners on the 
earth. Now they who thus profess, shew that they are in quest 
of a country ; for if they had cherished the remembrance of that 
from which they came, they had opportunity to return thither. 
But now they were desirous of a better [country], that is, of a 
heavenly one. Wherefore God is not ashamed of them, [nor] 
to be called their God; for he hath prepared a city for them. 

By faith Abraham, when tried, made an offering of Isaac ; 


HEBREWS ΧΙ. 18—34. 


18 
19 


20 
21 


22 


23 


28 


29 


30 


ΘΙ 


32 


33 


34 


yea, he who had received the promises made an offering of his 
only Son; unto whom it had been said: “In Isaac shall there 
be a seed to thee ;” counting that God was able to raise him 
even from the dead, whence also, comparatively [speaking], he 
did obtain him. 

By faith Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau, in respect to the 
future. By faith Jacob, when about to die, blessed each of 
Joseph’s sons, and bowed himself upon the top of his staff. 
By faith Joseph, at the close of life, made mention of the depar- 
ture of the children of Israel [from Egypt], and gave command- 
ment respecting his own bones. 

By faith Moses, after his birth, was concealed for three 
months by his parents, because they saw that he was a goodly 
child, and they did not fear the king’s commandment. By 
faith Moses, when arrived at mature age, refused to be called 
the son of Pharaoh’s daughter; choosing rather to suffer afflic- 
tion with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin 
for a season ; counting reproach, such as Christ endured, to be 
greater riches than all the treasures of Egypt; for he had re- 
spect to a state of reward. By faith he left Egypt, not fearing 
the anger of the king ; for he continued stedfast, as seeing him 
who is invisible. By faith he observed the passover and the 
sprinkling of blood, so that he who destroyed the first born 
might not touch them. 

By faith they passed through the Red Sea, as on dry land ; 
which the Egyptians assaying to do, were drowned. By faith 
the walls of Jericho fell down, after they had been compassed 
about for seven days. 

By faith Rahab the harlot, having entertained the spies in a 
friendly manner, perished not with the unbelieving. 

And what shall I say more? For time would fail me, should 
I tell of Gideon, of Barak also, and Samson, and Jephtha; of 
David too, and Samuel, and the prophets; who through faith 
subdued kingdoms, executed justice, obtained promised bless- 
ings, stopped the mouths of lions, | quenched the violence of 
fire, escaped the edge of the sword, were made strong from a 
state of infirmity, became mighty in war, overthrew the armies 


HEBREWS ΧΙ. 35—XII. 9. 613 


39 of foreigners. Women recovered their dead, by a resurrection. 
Some were tortured, not accepting deliverance in order that 
36 they might attain a better resurrection. Others were tried by 
mockings and scourges, and also by bonds and imprisonment. 

37 They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, they were tempt- 
ed, they perished by the murderous sword, they went about in 
sheep-skins and goat-skins, in want, afilicted, injuriously treat- 

38 ed, τ (of whom the world was not worthy), wandering about in 
deserts and mountains, in caves also and dens of the earth. 

39 ~All these, moreover, who are commended on account of their 
faith, did not receive the promised blessing ; God having provi- 
ded some better thing for us, so that without us they could not 
fully obtain what was needed. 


Encouragement to persevere. ‘Trials should not dishearten, for God sends them in kindness 
to his children. The gospel holds out more that is cheering and encouraging than the law. 
The voice of its author must not be slighted. 


XII. Srvc now we are encompassed by so great a multitude of 
witnesses, laying aside every incumbrance, and especially the sin 
which easily besetteth us, let us run with perseverance the race 

2 which is set before us; looking unto Jesus the pattern and re- 

warder of our faith, who, on account of the joy set before him, 
endured the cross, despising the shame, and hath seated himself 
at the right hand of the throne of God. 

3 Consider him, now, who endured such opposition against him- 
self from sinners, lest becoming discouraged in your minds ye 
grow weary. Ye have not yet resisted unto blood, in your 
5 struggle against sin. And have ye forgotten the exhortation, 
which is addressed to you as children: “ My son, do not slight 
the chastenings of the Lord, nor be disheartened when reproved 
by him; for whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scour- 
7 geth every son whom he receiveth?” If ye endure chastise- 

ment, God is dealing with you as children; for what son is 

8 there, whom his father does not chasten? But if ye are with- 

out chastisement, of which all [children] are partakers, then are 
ye bastards and not sons. 

9 Furthermore, we have had fathers of our flesh who have 

78 


> 


for) 


014 


HEBREWS XII. 10—25. 


12 
13 


14 


20 


chastened us, and we have yielded them reverence ; shall we 
not much more yield subjection to the Father of [our] spirits, 
that we may live? For they chastened us a little while, accord- 
ing to their own pleasure ;_ but he, for our good, that we might 
be made partakers of his holiness. Now all chastening seemeth, 
for the present, not to be matter of joy but of grief; yet after- 
wards, it yieldeth the happy fruits of righteousness to those who 
are exercised thereby. 

Wherefore “strengthen the weak hands and the feeble knees,” 
and “ make plain the paths of your feet,” so that what is lame 
may not be wrenched, but rather healed. 

Follow after peace with all men, and holiness, without which 
no man shall see the Lord. See to it that no one fail of the 
favour of God ; that no root of bitterness spring up and trouble 
you, and many be defiled thereby. Let there be no fornicator, 
nor profane person, like Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold 
his birthright. For ye know that when he was afterwards de- 
sirous to obtain the blessing, it was refused; yea, he found no 
place for a change of mind [in his father], although he sought 
it with tears. 

For ye are not come to the mount which could be touched, 
and to flaming fire, and thick clouds, and darkness, and tempest; 
nor to the sound of the trumpet, and the voice of commands, 
the hearers of which refused that another word should be added 
to them ; (for they could not endure the injunction: “If even 


21 a beast touch the mountain, it shall be stoned ;’ and—so terri- 


22 


ble was the sight—even Moses said, “ I fear and tremble) :” but 
ye are come to mount Zion ; and to the city of the living God, 
the heavenly Jerusalem ; and to an innumerable multitude, the 


23 joyful assembly of angels ; and to the church of the first-born, en- 


24 


25 


rolled in heaven ; and to the Judge, who is the God of all ; and 
to the spirits of the just made perfect ; and to the mediator of the 
new covenant, Jesus; and to the blood of sprinkling, which 
speaketh better things than [the blood of] Abel. 

Take heed that ye turn not away from him who speaketh to 
you ; for if they did not escape who turned away from him who 
warned them on earth, much more shall we [not escape], if we 


HEBREWS XII. 96--ΧΉῊΉΠ. 12. 615 


slight him who [warneth us] from heaven; whose voice then 
26 shook the earth ; but now hath he promised, saying : ‘‘ Yet once 
27 more I will shake not only the earth, but heaven also.” Now 
this “ yet once more,” denoteth a removing of the things which 
are shaken, as made so that they must await the things which 
are not shaken. 
28 Wherefore, having obtained a kingdom which cannot be shak- 
en, let us hold fast that grace, by which we may serve God in 
29 an acceptable manner, with pious reverence. For our “ God is 
a consuming fire.” 


Various practical directions and cautions. Affectionate requests and salutations. 


ΧΠΙ. Let brotherly love continue. Forget not hospitality ; 
3 for by this, some have entertained angels unawares. Remem- 
ber those who are in bonds, as if ye yourselves were fellow- 
prisoners ; those who are suffering evil, as being yourselves yet 
4 inthe body. Let marriage be honoured among all, and the bed 
undefiled ; for whoremongers and adulterers God will judge. 
5 Let your conduct be free from covetousness, and be contented 
6 with what ye possess. For he hath said: “I will never leave 
thee nor forsake thee ;” so that we may boldly say: “The 
Lord is my helper, and I will not be afraid; what can man do 
to me ?” 
7 Remember your leaders, who have spoken unto you the word 
of God ; and attentively considering the end of their manner of 
8 life, imitate their faith. Jesus Christ is the same, yesterday, 
9 to-day, and forever. Be not carried hither and thither by di- 
verse and strange doctrines; for it is good that the heart should 
be confirmed by grace, and not by meats, by which those have 
10 not been profited who have been occupied therewith. We 
have an altar, of which they have no right to eat who render 
their service to the tabernacle. 
11 Moreover, the bodies of those animals, whose blood was car- 
ried into the sanctuary as a sin-offermg by the high priest, were 
12 burned without the camp. Wherefore Jesus also, that he might 
make expiation for the people by his own blood, suffered with- 


616 HEBREWS XIII. 13—25. 


13 out the gate. Let us then go forth to him without the camp, 

14 bearing reproaches like his ; for here we have no abiding city, 

15 but are seeking for one to come. By hin, therefore, let us 
continually present to God the sacrifice of praise, that is, the 
fruit of our lips, ascribing praise to his name. 

16 Forget not, moreover, kindness and liberality ; for with such 

17 sacrifices God is well pleased. Obey your leaders, and be sub- 
ject to them; for they watch over your souls, as those who 
must give an account. [So obey] that they may do this with 
joy and not with grief, for this would be unprofitable to you. 

18 Pray for us; for we trust that we have a good conscience, 

19 being desirous in all things to demean ourselves uprightly. And 
I request you the more earnestly to do this, in order that 1 may 
speedily be restored to you. 

20 Now may the God of peace, that raised from the dead our 
Lord Jesus, (who is the great Shepherd of the sheep with the 

21 blood of an everlasting covenant), | perfect you in every good 
work, so that ye may do his will; working in you that which is 
well-pleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ, to whom be glo- 
ry forever and ever! Amen. ᾿ 

22 I beseech you now, brethren, to bear with this word of ex- 
hortation ; for I have written briefly to you. 

23 Know ye, that our brother Timothy is sent away; with 
whom, if he return speedily, I shall visit you. 

24 Salute all your leaders, and all the saints. They of Italy sa- 

25 lute you. Grace be with you all! Amen. 


Section. 
1. Preliminary remarks : 
2. Is the letter inscribed to the Baca aay an epistle, or is 
it a homily or essay 3 
3. General considerations respecting the inscription. . ᾿ 
4, To what church was it written? . 
5. Was it written to the church at Galatia ? 
6. To the church at Thessalonica? . 
7. Τὸ Hebrews in Asia Minor? 
8. To the church at Corinth ? 5 : 
9. Τὸ the church in Spain, ee Alexandria, or Antioch ? 
10. To the church in Palestine ὃ 
REsvuLT  . : : : 
11. Was it directed to all of He chur ee in Palesiee or to at 
one of them ? 3 : ὃ 
12. Antiquity and canonical ΠΕ of the epistle 
13. Was Paul the author of the epistle to the Hebrews ἢ 
14. Testimony of the Alexandrine church ? 
15. Testimony of the Eastern churches 
16. Testimony of the Western churches 
17. Resut : : : 
18. Internal Eee that hee epistle is Paul’s 
19. Evidence of this from circumstances : : : 
20. Evidence from similarity of sentiment, form, method, style, etc. 
21. Similarity of Paul’s doctrines to those of this epistle 
22. Form and method of this epistle compared with those of Paul 
23. Phraseology and diction compared with those of Paul 
24. Remarks on the comparisons made 
25. Objections 


INDEX. 


Page. 


105 
119 
121 
121 
131 
131 
140 
147 
152 
156 


618 INDEX. 


Section. Page. 
26. Objections by Bertholdt ς 3 : i F : . 157 
27. Objections by Schulz : : : ‘ : : . 178 
28. Objections by Seyffarth ; Ἵ : : ΠΡ e 
29. Objections compared with those ΒΕ may be made against 

the genuineness of the first ΡΝ to the Corinthians . 218 
30. Objections by De Wette  . : : : : . 227 
31. Objections by Boehme and Bleck : : : : . 290 
32. Hebraisms and non-conformity to classic usage. 5 . 235 
33. Alexandrine hue of the epistle . : : : : . 248 
34. RESULT . : : : Motes : . 959 
35. Was Barnabas es atithod’ ? > : : Ὁ : . 253 
36. Was Luke the author ὃ : : ; : : . 256 


37. Was Clement of Rome the Aer ie 2! we : : ‘ . 9257 
38. Was Sylvanus the author? . ΑΔ é : : . 208 
39. Was Apollos the author? . : : : : 3 . 259 


40. In what language was the epistle written? . : : . 260 
41. Critical and exegetical helps : ᾿ ς : : . 265 
Summary of what is contained in the epistle ; : . 269 
ComMENTARY . : 2 : ; : : : ον ἢ 


TRANSLATION . ‘ : " : - Ἵ ; . 597 


i 

ut) 
My “ἢ 
A , y 4 


ἥλων 


2 


‘ 


ΔῊΝ 


AM 


